RALETC Official Results of Veil G5 - Testing - Part 2 (1 Viewer)

mirage

RALETC MEMBER
Advanced User
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
2,290
Reaction score
3,485
Awards
0
If you are interested in reading the full review / discussion you can read it here:

radarandlaserforum.com: RALETC Official Results of Veil G5 - Testing - Part 2

if you want to skip to the good stuff you can check it out here:


RunDistanceDiffComment
Baseline1729.9BASELINE Front
11326403.9Veil G5 on Head Lights and Fog Lights ONLY (Plus Logo, Badge, and Turn Signals)
21591.5138.4Veil G5 on Head Lights and Fog Lights ONLY (Plus Logo, Badge, and Turn Signals)
31238.9491Veil G5 on Bumpers and Head Lights
4166267.9DragonEye Speed Lidar Run - G5 on Bumper and Head lights


So with a single coat of Veil on the head lights and fog lights anything less than 1300 ftft was IPT on the TSSxb. On the full coverage runs anything under 1200 ft was IPT on the TSSxb
Veil G5 had little to no effect on the DragonEye Speed Lidar.


Head Light Coverage and Appearance

20150322_111636.jpg




Full Coverage. Man that's a lot to cover.

20150322_124210.jpg
 
Last edited:

Benji

Premium RDF Member
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2012
Messages
4,607
Reaction score
2,287
Awards
0
Location
San Antonio, TX.
So we can at least say that Veil has some effect at least at large distances and it's not just a total loss, I think we all know by now Veil is never going to be JTG but can certainly make some difference if you happen to be sporting a lot of chrome on or something.

But it will never be a substitute for proper parking sensors.
 

jdong

Premium RDF Member
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
6,853
Reaction score
9,437
Awards
0
So we can at least say that Veil has some effect at least at large distances and it's not just a total loss, I think we all know by now Veil is never going to be JTG but can certainly make some difference if you happen to be sporting a lot of chrome on or something.

But it will never be a substitute for proper parking sensors.
And it appears more useful if the LEO's in your area shoot you at a long distance and basically useless if they tend to ambush you at point blank range
 

Higado de Acero

Whisky is liquid sunshine.
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
2,905
Reaction score
1,825
Awards
0
Location
Antofagasta, Chile. The driest desert in the world
So just to be clear, the Dragon Slayer didn't slay any dragon. This is trully dissapointing
 

Vortex

Making Videos
Administrator
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Acceptus
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
21,006
Reaction score
42,070
Awards
0
Location
Washington State
Great job with the test. I'm happy to see Veil doing something, even if only in very particular cases. It does look much better applied to headlights too.
 
Last edited:

mirage

RALETC MEMBER
Advanced User
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
2,290
Reaction score
3,485
Awards
0
I'll try to answer everyone's questions in one post. First of all, I have always stated that I thought Veil does have some effect, but I suspected it would require more than a light coat to get truly good results and that can potentially be dangerous because of the current look of G5 (and the odd speed readings we encountered on the TSSxb). I have to say I was surprised I got any reduction at all honestly with just a single coat, but we also covered all of the chrome on the front so that may have had an effect as well. That being said I spoke to Bob yesterday after completing the tests and gave him the results. He was obviously disappointed, but he was very much dedicated to making it work. He was willing to send more Veil for further testing (as we used all of it up with this test) against these difficult guns. I fully expect we will see more tests down the road with a wider variety of guns, and I suspect a slightly different set of results depending on the gun being used (older guns maybe easier to Stealth against). You have to remember the DragonEye I used was really really new and the optics on the full size speed lidar are amazing capable of 6000' readings.
 

STS134

Premium RDF Member
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
9,620
Reaction score
8,761
Awards
0
Location
Saratoga, CA
You have to remember the DragonEye I used was really really new and the optics on the full size speed lidar are amazing capable of 6000' readings.
What about taking readings with a ProLaser 4 if you do another test? That one's advertised as capable up to 8000'.
 

thetrader

Premium RDF Member
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2011
Messages
789
Reaction score
312
Awards
0
Thanks for sharing and your time put into this. Looks like more work needs to be done by Veil.
 

mirage

RALETC MEMBER
Advanced User
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
2,290
Reaction score
3,485
Awards
0
And a front plate? Would be interesting to see if a Veil'd plate has any effect on the PT distance.
Front plate was not tested because you will not be able to use G5 in its current form on a front plate without it being noticeable.
 

alloy00

vMax
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
2,599
Reaction score
2,625
Awards
0
Thank you very much [MENTION=164]mirage[/MENTION] :)

My question: knowing what you know so far, are YOU going to use Veil G5?
 

mirage

RALETC MEMBER
Advanced User
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
2,290
Reaction score
3,485
Awards
0
Thank you very much @mirage :)

My question: knowing what you know so far, are YOU going to use Veil G5?

WOW that's a loaded question. Honestly an old friend of mine once told me it is hard to beat JTG performance and since I have that with my ALP's........
 

protias

Retired CM enthusiast
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
24,284
Reaction score
12,574
Awards
0
Location
WI
That is a lot of Veil. One would think they way it is advertised, you should have been JTG...err STG.
 

mirage

RALETC MEMBER
Advanced User
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
2,290
Reaction score
3,485
Awards
0
That is a lot of Veil. One would think they way it is advertised, you should have been JTG...err STG.
I was trying to get more than 400ft out of it but even with that much Veil it wasn't possible. Too bad I was hoping it would work better. So much for the Dragon Slayer. IPT on the DESL no matter how you slice it.
 

Veil Guy

Banned
Newly Registered
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
2,414
Reaction score
1,950
Awards
0
And it appears more useful if the LEO's in your area shoot you at a long distance and basically useless if they tend to ambush you at point blank range
For what it's worth Georgia, I understand, can legally issue speed citations within 2000 feet and may target further to pre-qualify vehicles from a greater distance. But still, I would like to offer the following observations about Mirage's test(s).

First the lab ones. Sorry if this sounds abrupt but I simply do not put much stock into them and for these reasons.

The one assumption or conclusion that one needs FIVE coats to show any appreciable absorption was in error. This was due to point black range of targeting (a matter of inches). In such unrealistic situations that amount of total energy that the material is being asked to absorb results in what is called saturation absorption, where the excited particles are so overwhelmed that they can not return to the state quickly enough to provide as an effective absorption. Interesting test to demonstrate that effect, but has no bearing on what happens when the material is exposed to lidar conventionally targeted (at many feet).

The second video test showing surface reflections (to suggest that more light is reflected than absorbed) is also not realistic. At such close range of highly concentrated light glare tends to overwhelm the absorption that occurs versus any residual reflections that would occur in the real-world of conventional targeting.

So, I believe that these tests and their conclusions are misleading (and I hope was not done to intentionally do so).

With respect to the testing on the course. A couple of points I would like to offer:

1) I think I read that a "light" coat was applied to the headlights. I don't believe therefore that the coating was representative of what should normally be applied. I have only suggested a light coat on either the plate and plate cover or two light coats on a plate cover (front or back). Cutting the performance down in thickness by any appreciable distance, could certainly adversely impact results. I would have suggested applying a normal thickness to the lights, etc, and then even applying a second coat to see if any appreciable differences could be observed.

2) Tripod mounting (for the sake of producing HUD shots) are simply not representative of targeting in the real-world. I haven't been aware of any targeting for more than a decade with lidars mounted or steadied on tripods. Today's laser are specifically designed to be easily hand-holdable (especially the binocular types that can often be found to be operated by motorcycle LEO use).

3) This was only a limited number of guns tested. I believe we will have a much broader set of results to look at this upcoming test. Lot's of lasers, a number of different vehicles or varying configuration, and what I have been anxious to see for a long time, layered defense with both Veil and jammers to see if any differences can be observed. With the exception of the ALP which requires two heads for certain lasers (due to specific design constraints), I have personally observed the possibility of using only one head center mounted with Veil on the headlights to knock out the far away reflections that would otherwise occur, hence making it easier on the jammer head to do its function.

4) In our lab, which is far more sophisticated than a homemade one, I can assure you that G5 is quite a bit more efficacious than G4.

5) To suggest that G5 is too dark for plate use, I also believe is not correct. We have shown plate covers and plates that were appropriately covered that present nothing like the blackness that was presented in Mirage's experiments.

6) Yes we are likely going to "thin" G5 a little to help prevent such over applications so please stay tuned for a product update that shall be forthcoming.

Please don't take this response as contentious and please don't summarily write off G5 just on this one test.

Regards,

VG
 

alloy00

vMax
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
2,599
Reaction score
2,625
Awards
0
) I think I read that a "light" coat was applied to the headlights. I don't believe therefore that the coating was representative of what should normally be applied. I have only suggested a light coat on either the plate and plate cover or two light coats on a plate cover (front or back). Cutting the performance down in thickness by any appreciable distance, could certainly adversely impact results. I would have suggested applying a normal thickness to the lights, etc, and then even applying a second coat to see if any appreciable differences could be observed.
Please define "light" and "normal" coverage - for example, __ tablespoons per __ sq in. That will allow for the 'thickness variable' to be defined in future testing. And also give a reference point for actual application.
 

mirage

RALETC MEMBER
Advanced User
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
2,290
Reaction score
3,485
Awards
0
For what it's worth Georgia, I understand, can legally issue speed citations within 2000 feet and may target further to pre-qualify vehicles from a greater distance. But still, I would like to offer the following observations about Mirage's test(s).

First the lab ones. Sorry if this sounds abrupt but I simply do not put much stock into them and for these reasons.

The one assumption or conclusion that one needs FIVE coats to show any appreciable absorption was in error. This was due to point black range of targeting (a matter of inches). In such unrealistic situations that amount of total energy that the material is being asked to absorb results in what is called saturation absorption, where the excited particles are so overwhelmed that they can not return to the state quickly enough to provide as an effective absorption. Interesting test to demonstrate that effect, but has no bearing on what happens when the material is exposed to lidar conventionally targeted (at many feet).

The second video test showing surface reflections (to suggest that more light is reflected than absorbed) is also not realistic. At such close range of highly concentrated light glare tends to overwhelm the absorption that occurs versus any residual reflections that would occur in the real-world of conventional targeting.

So, I believe that these tests and their conclusions are misleading (and I hope was not done to intentionally do so).

With respect to the testing on the course. A couple of points I would like to offer:

1) I think I read that a "light" coat was applied to the headlights. I don't believe therefore that the coating was representative of what should normally be applied. I have only suggested a light coat on either the plate and plate cover or two light coats on a plate cover (front or back). Cutting the performance down in thickness by any appreciable distance, could certainly adversely impact results. I would have suggested applying a normal thickness to the lights, etc, and then even applying a second coat to see if any appreciable differences could be observed.

2) Tripod mounting (for the sake of producing HUD shots) are simply not representative of targeting in the real-world. I haven't been aware of any targeting for more than a decade with lidars mounted or steadied on tripods. Today's laser are specifically designed to be easily hand-holdable (especially the binocular types that can often be found to be operated by motorcycle LEO use).

3) This was only a limited number of guns tested. I believe we will have a much broader set of results to look at this upcoming test. Lot's of lasers, a number of different vehicles or varying configuration, and what I have been anxious to see for a long time, layered defense with both Veil and jammers to see if any differences can be observed. With the exception of the ALP which requires two heads for certain lasers (due to specific design constraints), I have personally observed the possibility of using only one head center mounted with Veil on the headlights to knock out the far away reflections that would otherwise occur, hence making it easier on the jammer head to do its function.

4) In our lab, which is far more sophisticated than a homemade one, I can assure you that G5 is quite a bit more efficacious than G4.

5) To suggest that G5 is too dark for plate use, I also believe is not correct. We have shown plate covers and plates that were appropriately covered that present nothing like the blackness that was presented in Mirage's experiments.

6) Yes we are likely going to "thin" G5 a little to help prevent such over applications so please stay tuned for a product update that shall be forthcoming.

Please don't take this response as contentious and please don't summarily write off G5 just on this one test.

Regards,

VG

Are you still going on about this... Geez how much more testing do you want us to do? I mean we have tested in the lab, we have applied to vehicles (Vortex and I), and we have smeared more Veil over our cars then I care to ever do again. Quit whining about the tests and fix your product. I applied 2 complete CANS of Veil G5 to the front of the Camaro and it only showed at best a 300-400 ft reduction and ONLY over 1000ft. Under 1000ft it was IPT which means over 90% of the encounters your product will be absolutely ineffective. You have another test coming up in Arizona this week with a full assault of guns. So test it again and see if the results are any different than what I and Vortex have already observed. Has the formula changed again? I also heard you're trying to find another black, low profile vehicle so I guess you're still not going to try it on a regular car. Why not test it on the test vehicle they are testing every other laser product on. Oh wait I tested on a black vehicle too and it had little effect...... hmmm.... oh wait I forgot that was because of the tripod. Should have known no cop in his right mind would brace his lidar with anything.....:sotw:
 
Last edited:

Veil Guy

Banned
Newly Registered
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
2,414
Reaction score
1,950
Awards
0
Hey, the results may not be as important to you and that's fine, but they are to us especially if we have to address something to improve the outcomes (and subsequent conclusions).

Oh I forgot to mention one other thing. The vehicle that Mirage tested had a smaller set of headlight coverage than say many other vehicles that have larger headlight systems which as a percentage of the whole front would further help since more would be treated.

With respect to the commentary above, I asked Mirage to drive around with the product and try to rack up some experiences in the real-world. Don't know if that's going to happen. I thought he was going to, but judging by the sound of the above post, perhaps not, it appears he has formed his conclusions.

In any event, I merely wanted to provide some responses as I have been asked to do. Accept them or not. I'll leave that each individual. Of course, most testing (with any/all CMs) are preferred, the more the better, the more vehicles. the better.

I do look forward to a more thorough outside examination against a whole host of police lasers in Arizona. I'll be there too to confirm that the installation (ie; application is proper) and targeting are consistent with what I would expect and I think there are going to be at least 12 guns and several vehicles tested. and I believe YC will be doing the trigger pulling.

We'll see what those results are going to be.

VG
 
Last edited:

Salty

Get out of my way
Advanced User
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
10,511
Reaction score
6,620
Awards
0
Hey, the results may not be as important to you and that's fine, but they are to us especially if we have to address something to improve the outcomes (and subsequent conclusions).



VG
I would believe this if 98% of what you post wasn't ridiculing others testing methods, and making excuses for why every single independent test has shown G5 to be virtually ineffective.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)

Unregistered User Ad


ATTENTION: Want ads to disappear? Register for an account by clicking here - it's free and NO ADS ARE DISPLAYED TO REGISTERED MEMBERS! Thanks!

Donation drives

RDF Server & License Fees (AUGUST 2019) (ACTIVE)

This donation drive covers the server and licensing fees for RDF for the month of August 2019...
Goal
$541.00
Earned
$190.00
This donation drive ends in

Latest threads

Latest posts

Social Group Activity

Forum statistics

Threads
76,550
Messages
1,166,539
Members
19,672
Latest member
tommyh
Top