Radar detection of motorcycle speed ...
Martin Schuessler
I was wondering what the collective experience is on
how difficult it is to nab a motorcycle with a
radar gun.
My first motorcycle was a Honda Nighthawk. Every once
in a while, the PD would set up a trailer in our
neighborhood showing your actual speed and the posted
speed limit. No problem. THe NH always registered from
a pretty good distance away. The radar uses X-band, BTW.
Now enter a '96 Kawi ZX-9R. When I next saw the trailer,
I thought "Great - now I can check the accuracy of my
speedo." The radar didn't register my speed until I was
very close to the unit, and even then a passing car
was immediately targeted even though I was closer.
I assume that these portable units probably use a wider
beam then "normal" radar guns. But still - it makes me
wonder how many speeding tickets motorcyclists get as
a result of operator error.
Second topic - how easy are MC's to detect with Laser ?
On a car, there's the license plate. But my ZX doesn't
even have any reflective surfaces in the front, an then
there's the headlight to screw with the laser as well.
Have there been any published articles on these subject
matters ?
Follow up question - anyone out there use the BEL945iM
cordless detector for motorcycles ?
Martin
QDMPHAN
I've read a pretty good review of the Bel 945 in cycle world and was wondering
if anyone had real world experience with it. I'm in the market for a radar
detector that I can use in both my car and on my bike. What do y'all suggest?
Q
Bob Foglesong
Onethumb wrote:
>
> The reflector inside the headlight is also a good aiming point. The
> wavelength from the headlight is different than that of the laser, so
> interference should be minimal.
That's not exactly true. Though a headlight is certainly spewing out a
lot of visible light, it also generates a lot of IR. LIDAR uses a near
visible infrared 800 or 900 nm. Car & Driver did a study a few years
back which found that headlights did indeed interfere with LIDAR. It
was amazing how much high beams did to reduce the range of LIDAR.
Bob
>
> On Thu, 14 May 1998 13:55:12 -0500, Martin Schuessler
> <martin.s...@amd.com> went to great lengths explaining:
> (c)Mark Johnson: NRA Life: TSRA Annual: DoD #2021
> Iron Butt/SS1000 9/6/1997, Fort Worth, Texas
> Bikes & Spikes: http://web2.airmail.net/onethumb/
> Cigar Smoke Web Ring: http://www.priosys.com/cswr/
> To reduce the spam, email to onethumb at airmail dot net
Nick Shadoff
In article <355B3E10...@amd.com>,
martin.s...@amd.com says...
>
>I was wondering what the collective experience is on
>how difficult it is to nab a motorcycle with a
>radar gun.
>Second topic - how easy are MC's to detect with Laser
?
>On a car, there's the license plate. But my ZX doesn't
>even have any reflective surfaces in the front, an then
>there's the headlight to screw with the laser as well.
>Have there been any published articles on these
subject
>matters ?
I remember reading in a cycle magazine back in the
mid-80's that the headlight bucket on a bike makes
almost a perfectly shaped radar reflector dish. Dunno
about lasers...
--Nick Shadoff
'79 XS650F
Geoff Merryweather.
On Thu, 14 May 1998 13:55:12 -0500, Martin Schuessler
>
>Second topic - how easy are MC's to detect with Laser ?
>On a car, there's the license plate. But my ZX doesn't
>even have any reflective surfaces in the front, an then
>there's the headlight to screw with the laser as well
i have had a play with a lidar gun (Kustom Prolaser II). Bikes are
harder to get than cars as they are smaller and this makes it more
difficult to sight onto it. At close range though (less than 400m),
there is no problems, especially if it is more or less coming straight
towards you. When I tried, we were on top of a bridge, so the
"sideways component" of the bikes speed made it harder to get a lock.
Straight on (eg car beside road) would be a lot easier.
Geoff
--
Radar detector FAQ, Forte Agent automation FAQ, bathroom fan FAQ
are at http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~geoff/
REMOVE "DELETEME" SPAMBLOCKER FROM ADDRESS TO REPLYTO USENET POSTINGS
Brian McLaughlin
I use the Valentine One. It does everything it is advertised to do. From
the tests I have seen it is the only detector that gives any useful
rearward protection. Generally see radar at more than a mile. The range
seems no different car or bike. Because of how it works (shows number
and location of radar sources) there are no false alarms and police
cannot be masked by other radar sources.
--
Brian McLaughlin AP #1
TZ250E (1993-95) 2 strokes smoke,
R1100RTA (1997) 4 strokes choke!
EX250 Ninja (1998)
Vin
Brian McLaughlin <bmcla...@waukesha.tec.wi.us> wrote:
>I use the Valentine One. It does everything it is advertised to do. From
>the tests I have seen it is the only detector that gives any useful
>rearward protection. Generally see radar at more than a mile. The range
>seems no different car or bike. Because of how it works (shows number
>and location of radar sources) there are no false alarms and police
>cannot be masked by other radar sources.
How well does the Valentine work on a bike and also
how did you go about mounting it?
Ge...@ihug.co.nz.deletethis
On Thu, 14 May 1998 22:21:17 -0500, Bob Foglesong <fogl...@uiuc.edu>
wrote:
>That's not exactly true. Though a headlight is certainly spewing out a
>lot of visible light, it also generates a lot of IR. LIDAR uses a near
>visible infrared 800 or 900 nm. Car & Driver did a study a few years
>back which found that headlights did indeed interfere with LIDAR. It
>was amazing how much high beams did to reduce the range of LIDAR.
Modern lidar guns cannot be jammed by a coninious signal, such as
comes out of headlights. As the gun fires pulses (usually at 20ns
intervals) it looks for a return signal also pulsing like that.
Geoff
"Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the
bodies of the people who pissed me off."
Radar detector FAQ and Forte Agent automation FAQ both at
QDMPHAN
While reading the review for the Bel 945i there was a mention of a radar
detector detector detector...No I'm not stuttering. Does the Valentine one have
this function? I don't want to be busted for merely having a radar detector.
Who knows what states have laws against radar detectors?
Q
Phoenix76RB
QDMPHAN wrote:
>
> While reading the review for the Bel 945i there was a mention of a radar
> detector detector detector...No I'm not stuttering. Does the Valentine one have
> this function?
No.
> I don't want to be busted for merely having a radar detector.
>
> Who knows what states have laws against radar detectors?
Virginia.
Ken V.
Phoenix76RB <2mo...@erols.com> wrote in message
<355CC4...@erols.com>...
>Virginia.
>
And DC also...
Phoenix76RB
Ken V. wrote:
>
> Phoenix76RB <2mo...@erols.com> wrote:
> >Virginia.
> And DC also...
The question was:
> Who knows what states have laws against radar detectors?
D.C. is not a state.... yet.
Bill and Dawn
On Fri, 15 May 1998 22:46:51 -0400, Phoenix76RB <2mo...@erols.com>
wrote:
isn't DC the great state of Confusion that was mentioned in another
thread a few days ago?...;-)
--------------------------------------------------------
|Bill and Dawn '94 Ford Bronco
| '85 Honda Magna V30
| '72 Olds Cutlass Supreme
|Email address changed due to growing Auto-SPAM.
--------------------------------------------------------
Art Campbell
I had an early Bel and basically thought it was a cheaply-redesigned
car detector. It's control buttons are surface mount and are easily
pressed by cloth moving over them (thereby changing its settings) in
your pocket or tankbag. The batttery compartment cover vibrated loose
the first week or so and disappeared down the highway. Range,
compared to an old Solo or my car's Valentine, was basically not
as good as I thought it should have been. After running with it
for a summer, it basically died from day-to-day vibration, drops,
and general use.
I'm now running a Valentine with the audio and video display modules
now (for the second year) and am quite plesed. Wouldn't change
it.
Brian McLaughlin <bmcla...@waukesha.tec.wi.us> writes:
>QDMPHAN wrote:
>>
>> I've read a pretty good review of the Bel 945 in cycle world and was wondering
>> if anyone had real world experience with it. I'm in the market for a radar
>> detector that I can use in both my car and on my bike. What do y'all suggest?
>I use the Valentine One. It does everything it is advertised to do. From
>the tests I have seen it is the only detector that gives any useful
>rearward protection. Generally see radar at more than a mile. The range
>seems no different car or bike. Because of how it works (shows number
>and location of radar sources) there are no false alarms and police
>cannot be masked by other radar sources.
>--
>Brian McLaughlin AP #1
>TZ250E (1993-95) 2 strokes smoke,
>R1100RTA (1997) 4 strokes choke!
>EX250 Ninja (1998)
--
Cheers,
Art
Art Campbell ar...@world.std.com ArtCa...@compuserve.com
Art Campbell
The Valentine doesn't emit any radiation that can be picked up by a
detector detector. www.valentineone.com
Phoenix76RB <2mo...@erols.com> writes:
>QDMPHAN wrote:
>>
>> While reading the review for the Bel 945i there was a mention of a radar
>> detector detector detector...No I'm not stuttering. Does the Valentine one have
>> this function?
>No.
>> I don't want to be busted for merely having a radar detector.
>>
>> Who knows what states have laws against radar detectors?
>Virginia.
Art Campbell
I'm going to horn in on this, being a V1 fan and all. The V1 has no
personal feelings about being mounted on a cycle or a car, although
the cycle mount does seem happier.
I haven't noticed any difference in range or operation between the
cycle mount and the car mount. Both work well.
On my cycle, the V1 started life in the inside of one of the fairing
uppers, with the audio and video displays above the instruments on
the windscreen. However, it rattled around in the fairing, so this
season's it's Velcroed to the inside of my tank bag. Displays in
the same place.
One tip: V1s are sensitive to voltage fluctuations (a drop can cause a
reset or a partial reset), and I get these on my cycle at certain
RPMs in certain situations. So you may want to ask the V1 ordering
folks about their fix. Apparently, they have a special doodad
that they wire into V1s destined for life on some E36 BMW cages
because the cigarette lighter circuit is shared, which can cause
a reset. I imagine it's a capacitor or something to keep voltage
constant, although I never asked.
vi...@hotmail.com (Vin) writes:
>Brian McLaughlin <bmcla...@waukesha.tec.wi.us> wrote:
>>I use the Valentine One. It does everything it is advertised to do. From
>>the tests I have seen it is the only detector that gives any useful
>>rearward protection. Generally see radar at more than a mile. The range
>>seems no different car or bike. Because of how it works (shows number
>>and location of radar sources) there are no false alarms and police
>>cannot be masked by other radar sources.
>How well does the Valentine work on a bike and also
>how did you go about mounting it?
--
Phoenix76RB
Art Campbell wrote:
>
> I'm going to horn in on this, being a V1 fan and all. The V1 has no
> personal feelings about being mounted on a cycle or a car, although
> the cycle mount does seem happier.
> I haven't noticed any difference in range or operation between the
> cycle mount and the car mount. Both work well.
> On my cycle, the V1 started life in the inside of one of the fairing
> uppers, with the audio and video displays above the instruments on
> the windscreen. However, it rattled around in the fairing, so this
> season's it's Velcroed to the inside of my tank bag. Displays in
> the same place.
> One tip: V1s are sensitive to voltage fluctuations (a drop can cause a
> reset or a partial reset), and I get these on my cycle at certain
> RPMs in certain situations. So you may want to ask the V1 ordering
> folks about their fix. Apparently, they have a special doodad
> that they wire into V1s destined for life on some E36 BMW cages
> because the cigarette lighter circuit is shared, which can cause
> a reset. I imagine it's a capacitor or something to keep voltage
> constant, although I never asked.
Thanks, Art. This is the kind of information that is useful. My
original question in a parallel thread about the Bel was predicated
on its portability (I have several bikes) and audibility of the
alarm. I used to use the original Cincinnati Microwave Solo cordless
detector; great product, unfortunately not updated by CM for current
radar units. But I couldn't hear the audible alarm on it.
I *KNOW* the Valentine is the best radar detector on the market. I
have a number of friends who've used it and are big boosters. However,
they use it in their 4-wheeled vehicles.
How would you go about moving your V1 from bike to bike, if you had
to? And how would you ensure that you could *SEE* the warning display
if you had to mount the V1 on an unfaired motorcycle?
Thanks again for the earlier info!
LM
Everything on a bike will reflect RADAR, including the driver.
Motorcycles are no problem to clock, unless there are larger targets
(cars) in the area then they can be difficult to clock. Don't know
about LIDAR, never clocked a bike with it. Cars are no problem, but
most of them have lots of shiny surfaces to reflect the laser.
On 15 May 1998 05:15:43 GMT, have...@pop.nlci.com (Nick Shadoff)
wrote:
>In article <355B3E10...@amd.com>,
>martin.s...@amd.com says...
>>
>>I was wondering what the collective experience is on
>>how difficult it is to nab a motorcycle with a
>>radar gun.
>(snip)
>>Second topic - how easy are MC's to detect with Laser
>?
>>On a car, there's the license plate. But my ZX doesn't
>>even have any reflective surfaces in the front, an then
Ken V.
Phoenix76RB
Actually it was the person who tacked on D.C. that
was picking nits. I live in northern Virginia, about
20 miles from D.C.
I can tell you from a lifetime's worth of experience
that a rider in D.C. has a LOT more to worry about than
whether their radar detector is legal or not. I.E.
"Where the HELL did those shots come from?!!!"
Martin Schuessler
Ken V. wrote:
>
> My, aren't we literal...
> Phoenix76RB <2mo...@erols.com> wrote in message
> <355CFE...@erols.com>...
> >D.C. is not a state.... yet.
Wow. D.C. must be THE place to live. They don't
allow radar detectors, you're not allowed to
own guns, and there must be a ton of other laws
to protect us from mishap.
That must be one safe place to live. Heck, the
crime rate is probably non-existent ! Can't
wait to find a job and move up there.
Martin
'96 ZX-9R
David Cullen
It's pretty cool if you're a senator, representative, or
lobbyist.
Martin Schuessler <martin.s...@amd.com> wrote in article
<35604970...@amd.com>...
Desm...@my-dejanews.com
In article <355B3E10...@amd.com>,
Martin Schuessler <martin.s...@amd.com> wrote:
>
> I was wondering what the collective experience is on
> how difficult it is to nab a motorcycle with a
> radar gun.
>
Let's just think about this for a minute. If they can clock a baseball with a
radar gun, what makes you think a motorcycle is going to slip by?
I don't know if I'd rely on a radar detector to save me, either. By the time
you pick it up, you're looking at the cop anyway. Then you've got two
choices: break it down, or start turning corners.
DesmoDave ---\Ducati 900SSCR/---
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Brian McLaughlin
LM wrote:
>
> Everything on a bike will reflect RADAR, including the driver.
> Motorcycles are no problem to clock, unless there are larger targets
> (cars) in the area then they can be difficult to clock. Don't know
> about LIDAR, never clocked a bike with it. Cars are no problem, but
> most of them have lots of shiny surfaces to reflect the laser.
Some plastics and fiberglass (as long as metallic paint is not used) do
not reflect radar. If the surfaces are not reltively flat, the reflected
signal will be weak since most of the energy will not be directed back
towards the sender.
Brian McLaughlin
Art Campbell wrote:
> One tip: V1s are sensitive to voltage fluctuations (a drop can cause a
> reset or a partial reset), and I get these on my cycle at certain
> RPMs in certain situations. So you may want to ask the V1 ordering
> folks about their fix. Apparently, they have a special doodad
> that they wire into V1s destined for life on some E36 BMW cages
> because the cigarette lighter circuit is shared, which can cause
> a reset. I imagine it's a capacitor or something to keep voltage
> constant, although I never asked.
I had problems with my FZR. I just wired directly to the battery (called
up Valentine, said it was ok, only reason it says to find a wire that
turns on via ignition is so that leaving the detector on will not drain
the battery), end of problem.
Dave Clark
Brian McLaughlin (bmcla...@waukesha.tec.wi.us) wrote:
: Some plastics and fiberglass (as long as metallic paint is not used) do
: not reflect radar. If the surfaces are not reltively flat, the reflected
: signal will be weak since most of the energy will not be directed back
: towards the sender.
I don't think this is correct, or at least what you are implying
is not correct. If the surfaces are not flat, the signal will be scattered,
which is exactly what the radar guns like. If the signal hits a flat surface,
the signal will not scatter and it will be more difficult to pick up the
return. In theory, a very slightly concave surface would make the return
signal even harder to pick up. A glance at the Lockheed F-117 Stealth
bomber should convince. The F-117 reportedly has a radar signal equal
to that of a golf ball. It's shape contributes greatly to this, but
the shape also makes the aerodynamics difficult to manage, hence it
really isn't the ultimate flying machine.
On a motorcycle or a car, aerodynamics are not as crucial. I plan
to build a stealth car incorporating body panels with focal points
approximately equal to the average distance police clock from :-)
Dave
Dave Clark
Desm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: I don't know if I'd rely on a radar detector to save me, either....
The best solution is to start your own mobile radio station
from your vehicle, broadcasting noise on 10.252 Ghz, 24.150 Ghz, and
34.3 Ghz with a mean frequency deviation of 1.3 Ghz, just to make sure
you get the message across to ALL our LEO's. Oh, don't go to the FCC
to get your new mobile station licensed, they probably won't like it :-)
Dave
LM
They all will reflect some RADAR. You say the reflected signal will
be weak, I don't dispute that. I don't know of any material on
motorcycle that will not reflect at least some RADAR (even raindrops
will reflect some). Maybe not enough to get a return, but some signal
anyway.
On Tue, 19 May 1998 11:22:45 +0000, Brian McLaughlin
<bmcla...@waukesha.tec.wi.us> wrote:
>LM wrote:
>>
>> Everything on a bike will reflect RADAR, including the driver.
>> Motorcycles are no problem to clock, unless there are larger targets
>> (cars) in the area then they can be difficult to clock. Don't know
>> about LIDAR, never clocked a bike with it. Cars are no problem, but
>> most of them have lots of shiny surfaces to reflect the laser.
>
LM
On 19 May 1998 14:00:03 -0400, davc...@mtu.edu (Dave Clark) wrote:
>Brian McLaughlin (bmcla...@waukesha.tec.wi.us) wrote:
>
>: Some plastics and fiberglass (as long as metallic paint is not used) do
>: not reflect radar. If the surfaces are not reltively flat, the reflected
>: signal will be weak since most of the energy will not be directed back
>: towards the sender.
>
> I don't think this is correct, or at least what you are implying
>is not correct.
I don't think so either, and not in my experience (at least nor for
the materials used for commercial vehicles, military stealth is
another matter)
>If the surfaces are not flat, the signal will be scattered,
>which is exactly what the radar guns like.
actually he is probably correct here, depends on the angle though.
The signals need to be reflected back to the receiver to be picked up.
If they scatter and don't make it back to the receiver, they won't be
picked up --
>If the signal hits a flat surface,
>the signal will not scatter and it will be more difficult to pick up the
>return.
A lot more signal will be reflected if the surface is flat, which is
why a flat trailer on a semi is so easy to pick up (plus they are just
so big!)
> In theory, a very slightly concave surface would make the return
>signal even harder to pick up. A glance at the Lockheed F-117 Stealth
>bomber should convince. The F-117 reportedly has a radar signal equal
>to that of a golf ball. It's shape contributes greatly to this, but
>the shape also makes the aerodynamics difficult to manage, hence it
>really isn't the ultimate flying machine.
Which is why it and the B-2 are subsonic and are only flown in combat
at night. The aerodynamics are not that much of a problem, as long as
the flight computers are working
>
> On a motorcycle or a car, aerodynamics are not as crucial. I plan
>to build a stealth car incorporating body panels with focal points
>approximately equal to the average distance police clock from :-)
>
good luck
>
>Dave
LM
On Tue, 19 May 1998 15:46:50 GMT, Desm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <355B3E10...@amd.com>,
> Martin Schuessler <martin.s...@amd.com> wrote:
>>
>> I was wondering what the collective experience is on
>> how difficult it is to nab a motorcycle with a
>> radar gun.
>>
The big difference is that when you clock a baseball, there are not
other objects around at the same time. Try to clock a baseball as it
travels by a sightly slower basketball and you'll see what I mean.
Brian McLaughlin
Dave Clark wrote:
> Brian McLaughlin (bmcla...@waukesha.tec.wi.us) wrote:
>
> : Some plastics and fiberglass (as long as metallic paint is not used) do
> : not reflect radar. If the surfaces are not reltively flat, the reflected
> : signal will be weak since most of the energy will not be directed back
> : towards the sender.
>
> I don't think this is correct, or at least what you are implying
> which is exactly what the radar guns like. If the signal hits a flat surface,
> the signal will not scatter and it will be more difficult to pick up the
> signal even harder to pick up. A glance at the Lockheed F-117 Stealth
> bomber should convince. The F-117 reportedly has a radar signal equal
> to that of a golf ball. It's shape contributes greatly to this, but
> the shape also makes the aerodynamics difficult to manage, hence it
> really isn't the ultimate flying machine.
>
> to build a stealth car incorporating body panels with focal points
> approximately equal to the average distance police clock from :-)
You are misunderstanding my use of the word scatter. By scatter I mean
that the signal hits the bike and is reflected over a wide area, not
directly back at the radar. The stealth aircraft work the same way, not
much of the incoming signal is directed back at the source. This is what
I mean by scatter (diffuse reflection) as opposed to a spectral (mirror
like) reflection. Radar likes a large flat surface such as the front of
a truck or car. Underneath the plastic of a bike is not very flat and
will not reflect much back to the unit.
Brian McLaughlin
LM wrote:
>
> They all will reflect some RADAR. You say the reflected signal will
> be weak, I don't dispute that. I don't know of any material on
> motorcycle that will not reflect at least some RADAR (even raindrops
> will reflect some). Maybe not enough to get a return, but some signal
> anyway.
Which means that your range is reduced.
Biggest problem I have with police radar is the lack of target
identification. The operator has no way of knowing exactly which vehicle
the signal has come from. In the case of a single vehicle there is still
the inability of the operator to know if the return signal has come
directly from the moving vehicle.
> On Tue, 19 May 1998 11:22:45 +0000, Brian McLaughlin
> <bmcla...@waukesha.tec.wi.us> wrote:
> >LM wrote:
> >>
> >> Everything on a bike will reflect RADAR, including the driver.
> >> Motorcycles are no problem to clock, unless there are larger targets
> >> (cars) in the area then they can be difficult to clock. Don't know
> >> about LIDAR, never clocked a bike with it. Cars are no problem, but
> >> most of them have lots of shiny surfaces to reflect the laser.
> >
> >Some plastics and fiberglass (as long as metallic paint is not used) do
> >not reflect radar. If the surfaces are not reltively flat, the reflected
> >signal will be weak since most of the energy will not be directed back
> >towards the sender.
Dave Clark
Brian McLaughlin (bmcla...@waukesha.tec.wi.us) wrote:
: You are misunderstanding my use of the word scatter. By scatter I mean
I guess I am still misunderstanding. A convex surface will cause
the beam to diverge. A diverging beam will have a larger area of coverage
than one that does not diverge for a given distance. A radar unit in the
area will pick up the signal even though it is not as intense. Divergence
can only be so great - that is, if you were able to completely scatter the
beam 360 degrees in all directions, the scatter is as great as it can be.
There is a simple solution for building a radar gun that is unaffected
by 360 degree scatter. Send out a beam that is strong enough to keep
sufficent intensity to be recieved on the return at the desired distance
even if it is completely scattered. The sensitivity of the receiver
can be increased as well to meet the conditions.
If indeed radar units are designed with this in mind, I see no advantage
to a motorcycle's surfaces, in fact they may be a disadvantage.
: a truck or car. Underneath the plastic of a bike is not very flat and
: will not reflect much back to the unit.
Not much? How much does it take is the question. If the guns
were having a hard time picking up a motorcycle, the manufactures can
simply crank up the intensity and improve the receiver. Baseballs are
not terribly difficult to clock with modern radar equipment, as has
been mentioned.
Dave
Rich
LM wrote:
>
> On 19 May 1998 14:00:03 -0400, davc...@mtu.edu (Dave Clark) wrote:
>
> >Brian McLaughlin (bmcla...@waukesha.tec.wi.us) wrote:
> >
> >: not reflect radar. If the surfaces are not reltively flat, the reflected
> >: signal will be weak since most of the energy will not be directed back
> >: towards the sender.
> >
> >is not correct.
>
> the materials used for commercial vehicles, military stealth is
> another matter)
He is correct to an extent, some plastics, wood etc do not show up on
RADAR. Although it depends also on what band of the spectrum you are in
(UHF, VHF, S, X, K, Ka etc...) and on its shape and orientation to the
signal, does it have RAM on and what type, etc.. Too many variables to
make generalizations on this topic. He is not correct in his statement
about "if the surfaces are not relatively flat".
>
> >If the surfaces are not flat, the signal will be scattered,
> >which is exactly what the radar guns like.
Not true if designed properly.
>
> actually he is probably correct here, depends on the angle though.
> The signals need to be reflected back to the receiver to be picked up.
> If they scatter and don't make it back to the receiver, they won't be
> picked up --
>
> >If the signal hits a flat surface,
> >the signal will not scatter and it will be more difficult to pick up the
> >return.
>
> A lot more signal will be reflected if the surface is flat, which is
> why a flat trailer on a semi is so easy to pick up (plus they are just
> so big!)
>
Incorrect to an extent. Flat surfaces are some of the best LO (Low
Observable) shapes around. Why do you think the F117 ("Fighter" by the
way) is so Faceted. It depends on the surfaces orientation and position
on the object. Cupped or curved surfaces are some of the best at
reflecting and amplifying a signal back, ever hear of a RADAR dish?
Although once again if designed properly can fair well. Size doesn't
matter (or so they would have you believe :) ) of the shape when
designed properly.
> > In theory, a very slightly concave surface would make the return
> >signal even harder to pick up. A glance at the Lockheed F-117 Stealth
> >bomber should convince. The F-117 reportedly has a radar signal equal
> >to that of a golf ball. It's shape contributes greatly to this, but
> >the shape also makes the aerodynamics difficult to manage, hence it
> >really isn't the ultimate flying machine.
A few 117 pilot friends of mine would tend to disagree with that last
statement. You are correct though the 117 sacrificed a great deal
aerodynmically but the aero team was not the lead in that project, it
was the LO group. But that's what flight control systems are for now.
Almost every fighter built now is unstable and has to have flight
controls computers to fly them.
>
> Which is why it and the B-2 are subsonic and are only flown in combat
> at night. The aerodynamics are not that much of a problem, as long as
> the flight computers are working
Just because you're subsonic means that you aren't the "ultimate flying
machine"? A-10 pilots would also disagree with you as well as myself.
My bike is a pretty good flying machine too :).
> >
> > On a motorcycle or a car, aerodynamics are not as crucial. I plan
> >to build a stealth car incorporating body panels with focal points
> >approximately equal to the average distance police clock from :-)
> >
> good luck
> >
> >Dave
Interesting, I'd like to see that work. What form of software would you
use to make such a vehicle? Hand calcing won't work well unless you
plan to sit at a table the rest of your life doing matrices. Not to
mention that RADAR guns operate at the high end of the frequency
spectrum, X, K, and Ka. Your car would have to be flawless and would be
rendered useless when the first bug hits it, or rock from the road chips
the surface. Jammers are probably your best bet in defeating cops'
RADAR guns. Aero is important on cars and bikes; Gas mileage, comfort,
noise, top end speed, etc.. all are dependant on good aero performance.
It's been largely ignored in years past for bikes and only now Honda,
Kawi, Suz, etc. seem to be seeing its importance. I'm not sure why it's
taken them so long but it's nice to see now.
Rich
--
"Straighten up and Fly Right"
Remove the 9R's to reply directly; thanks spam.
Brian McLaughlin
Rich wrote:
> LM wrote:
> > On 19 May 1998 14:00:03 -0400, davc...@mtu.edu (Dave Clark) wrote:
> > >Brian McLaughlin (bmcla...@waukesha.tec.wi.us) wrote:
> > >
> > >: Some plastics and fiberglass (as long as metallic paint is not used) do
> > >: not reflect radar. If the surfaces are not reltively flat, the reflected
> > >: signal will be weak since most of the energy will not be directed back
> > >: towards the sender.
> > >
> > > I don't think this is correct, or at least what you are implying
> > >is not correct.
> >
> > I don't think so either, and not in my experience (at least nor for
> > the materials used for commercial vehicles, military stealth is
> > another matter)
>
> He is correct to an extent, some plastics, wood etc do not show up on
> RADAR. Although it depends also on what band of the spectrum you are in
> (UHF, VHF, S, X, K, Ka etc...) and on its shape and orientation to the
> signal, does it have RAM on and what type, etc.. Too many variables to
> make generalizations on this topic. He is not correct in his statement
> about "if the surfaces are not relatively flat".
I should have been more careful, by flat i meant the surface being
normal to the incoming beam. Most of the surfaces on a bike (under the
plastic) are not flat oriented normal to the beam.
Brian McLaughlin
>
> I guess I am still misunderstanding. A convex surface will cause
> the beam to diverge. A diverging beam will have a larger area of coverage
> than one that does not diverge for a given distance. A radar unit in the
> area will pick up the signal even though it is not as intense. Divergence
> can only be so great - that is, if you were able to completely scatter the
> beam 360 degrees in all directions, the scatter is as great as it can be.
The less that is sent back to the radar, the more difficult time the
radar will have picking up the signal, especially if there are better
targets around.
> There is a simple solution for building a radar gun that is unaffected
> by 360 degree scatter. Send out a beam that is strong enough to keep
> sufficent intensity to be recieved on the return at the desired distance
> even if it is completely scattered. The sensitivity of the receiver
> can be increased as well to meet the conditions.
>
> If indeed radar units are designed with this in mind, I see no advantage
> to a motorcycle's surfaces, in fact they may be a disadvantage.
The reflected energy has to hit the detector and be of sufficient
intensity. Making the sending unit very powerful or the reciever very
sensative would cause to much reception from the background. The amount
of radiation reflected back for a motorcycle is less than that for a
car. Therfore the threshold will be reached when the bike is closer than
the car. Gives the radar detector a much better chance.
>
> : a truck or car. Underneath the plastic of a bike is not very flat and
> : will not reflect much back to the unit.
>
> Not much? How much does it take is the question. If the guns
> were having a hard time picking up a motorcycle, the manufactures can
> simply crank up the intensity and improve the receiver. Baseballs are
> not terribly difficult to clock with modern radar equipment, as has
> been mentioned.
How close is the radar to the baseball? I think I would see a cop before
he was a 100ft or so away. The units output is going to be capped by the
FCC. Making the reciever too sesative would lead to picking up many
stray signals. I don't have the numbers. My Valentine One has picked up
radar at more than 2 miles (front or rear).
LM
On Wed, 20 May 1998 09:43:52 +0000, Brian McLaughlin
<bmcla...@waukesha.tec.wi.us> wrote:
>LM wrote:
>>
>> They all will reflect some RADAR. You say the reflected signal will
>> be weak, I don't dispute that. I don't know of any material on
>> motorcycle that will not reflect at least some RADAR (even raindrops
>> will reflect some). Maybe not enough to get a return, but some signal
>> anyway.
>
>Which means that your range is reduced.
\
Exactly, I don't recall saying otherwise
>
>Biggest problem I have with police radar is the lack of target
>identification. The operator has no way of knowing exactly which vehicle
>the signal has come from. In the case of a single vehicle there is still
>the inability of the operator to know if the return signal has come
>directly from the moving vehicle.
>
If properly trained this isn't as much of a problem as you might
think. If you know what you are doing, you don't usually need to know
exactly which vehicle the RADAR is clocking (there are exceptions of
course)
>
>
>> On Tue, 19 May 1998 11:22:45 +0000, Brian McLaughlin
>> <bmcla...@waukesha.tec.wi.us> wrote:
>> >LM wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Everything on a bike will reflect RADAR, including the driver.
>> >> Motorcycles are no problem to clock, unless there are larger targets
>> >> (cars) in the area then they can be difficult to clock. Don't know
>> >> about LIDAR, never clocked a bike with it. Cars are no problem, but
>> >> most of them have lots of shiny surfaces to reflect the laser.
>> >
Rich Ireland
In article <6k076l$ev4$1...@news.campus.mci.net>, Days Of Wild wrote:
> All of these DUMMAS threads are a waste.....
>
> What's your proof that a motorcycle is hard to detect???
> Have you tried to radar a bike?
> No!?!
> But yet Bike's are hard to detect?
> Then explain MY $88 ticket?
You didn't hire a good lawyer?
> Thank you!
No problem, HTH
--
Rich
biga...@my-dejanews.com
<snip> The (military) base police here have a little trailer they move around.
It uses radar to let you check your own speed/speedo. I find that it
inevatively tracks any car/truck within 100 yards or more of my bike - even
those going the opposite direction - until I am no more than 10 feet away. I
assume cop radar does the same.....
Brian McLaughlin
Days Of Wild wrote:
>
> All of these DUMMAS threads are a waste.....
Feel free to go else where.
> What's your proof that a motorcycle is hard to detect???
> Have you tried to radar a bike?
> No!?!
Compare the frontal area of a car to a bike.
> But yet Bike's are hard to detect?
No one said that they were not detectable. not as easy to detect as a
car or truck.
> Then explain MY $88 ticket?
You weren't paying attention and didn't see the cop until you were in
his lap.
> Thank you!
You're welcome.
Brian McLaughlin
LM wrote:
> On Wed, 20 May 1998 09:43:52 +0000, Brian McLaughlin
> <bmcla...@waukesha.tec.wi.us> wrote:
> >LM wrote:
> >>
> >> They all will reflect some RADAR. You say the reflected signal will
> >> be weak, I don't dispute that. I don't know of any material on
> >> motorcycle that will not reflect at least some RADAR (even raindrops
> >> will reflect some). Maybe not enough to get a return, but some signal
> >> anyway.
> >
> >Which means that your range is reduced.
> \
> Exactly, I don't recall saying otherwise
> >
> >Biggest problem I have with police radar is the lack of target
> >identification. The operator has no way of knowing exactly which vehicle
> >the signal has come from. In the case of a single vehicle there is still
> >the inability of the operator to know if the return signal has come
> >directly from the moving vehicle.
> >
> If properly trained this isn't as much of a problem as you might
> think. If you know what you are doing, you don't usually need to know
> exactly which vehicle the RADAR is clocking (there are exceptions of
> course)
This where the prosecutor says that the cop is an expert at judging
speed and the radar is only an aid.
I did the calculation once on how many cars could fit into the area
covered by radar (17deg angle was the beast at the time, .25 mile
range). More than 1000 cars can fit. Cop doesn't have to know to give
you the ticket because of how the system treats radar and cops speed
knowledge.
Brian McLaughlin
Dave Clark wrote:
> You sound as if you've done some research involving radar intensity
> and reception. I don't think you can draw these quantitative conclusions
> off the top of your head, especially when many people with first hand
> experience will tell you, radar seems to work fine on motorcycles. I
> had a friend clocked and ticketed on a bike last summer - he seemed
> to think the radar was pretty accurate. The signal may be weaker
> for a bike, but unless the traffic is fairly heavy it won't help you
> out, the gun will still register.
If you are close enough the bike will get picked up. How close this is
can vary dramatically. The rider is actually a good reflector,
especially when sitting upright.
Of course I prefer to use a detector (locator actually as Valetine One
likes to call it) to even up the odds.
Ashish L. Ranpura
In article <3563FD...@waukesha.tec.wi.us>, Brian McLaughlin
<bmcla...@waukesha.tec.wi.us> wrote:
:This where the prosecutor says that the cop is an expert at judging
:speed and the radar is only an aid.
:
:I did the calculation once on how many cars could fit into the area
:covered by radar (17deg angle was the beast at the time, .25 mile
:range). More than 1000 cars can fit. Cop doesn't have to know to give
:you the ticket because of how the system treats radar and cops speed
:knowledge.
Although I am sympathetic to the arguments against procedural speeding
tickets (that is, tickets issued to drivers who were not driving
recklessly), the argument that the cop's speeding knowledge is enough
checks out.
The bottom line is that it doesn't TAKE specialized knowledge to judge
speed. If there is a pack of cars and they are indistinguishable enough
that the radar hits several of them in a sustained way for a few seconds,
then anyone could safely assume that they were travelling at approximately
the same speed. Now if the radar clocks 80 mph as that speed, the car that
is chosen to be the cop's target may not have been going 80, but they
probably weren't going 65 either.
If you're going to have a ridiculous rule like fining people for speeding
safely (hell, NYC is now fining people for jaywalking!) then this is as
good a way to enforce it as any.
Vin
ar...@world.std.com (Art Campbell) wrote:
>I'm now running a Valentine with the audio and video display modules
>now (for the second year) and am quite plesed. Wouldn't change
>it.
Are you using it on the bike and if so how did you mount it and how do
you see and listen to it?
Brian McLaughlin
The display module is a seperate part that shows all the lights on the
front of the detector. The detector can be placed out of your line a
vision and the display can be put on the dash. Also useful in the car at
night, when used the display on the detector is blank so it is very
difficult to see at night.
the audio unit is a seperate part that can be used to turn on/off the
unit and mute it. It also has a jack for headphones.
By using the 2 extra units the unit can placed just about anywhere. On
my BMW I hang the unit from beneath my mirror using the supplied visor
clip. This allows both antennas to operate without interference.
Ollie
I run a Valentine One on my bike (VTR1000). I mount it in the top left
corner of the windshield. I can read the display and it can see both
forwards and backwards when it's in this position. I can hear it at
freeway speeds with earplugs in. I actually haven't run across radar
since getting it, so I can't make any claims as to its effectiveness, but
it has the biggest following of loyal users since the Beatles.
-Ollie
--
Fill in the blanks: oready_metacreations_com
DoD #1618
"Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail me now!" -Blues Brothers
K.Klevesahl
Rich wrote:
>
> LM wrote:
> >
> > On 19 May 1998 14:00:03 -0400, davc...@mtu.edu (Dave Clark) wrote:
> >
> > >Brian McLaughlin (bmcla...@waukesha.tec.wi.us) wrote:
> > >
> > >: not reflect radar. If the surfaces are not reltively flat, the reflected
> > >: signal will be weak since most of the energy will not be directed back
> > >: towards the sender.
> > >
> > > I don't think this is correct, or at least what you are implying
> > >is not correct.
> >
> > I don't think so either, and not in my experience (at least nor for
> > the materials used for commercial vehicles, military stealth is
> > another matter)
>
> He is correct to an extent, some plastics, wood etc do not show up on
> RADAR. Although it depends also on what band of the spectrum you are in
> (UHF, VHF, S, X, K, Ka etc...) and on its shape and orientation to the
> signal, does it have RAM on and what type, etc.. Too many variables to
> make generalizations on this topic. He is not correct in his statement
> about "if the surfaces are not relatively flat".
>
> >
radar/laser systems, either you absorb the incoming signal (anyone know
where we can get some samples of Stealth bomber paint?). Or reflect the
signal away by scattering it in any direction but foward (not towards
the source) "Up" would be the ideal direction as the pavement, trees,
houses, ect. could reflect the beam right back from where it came from.
If you look at the Stealth bomber, all edge and curved surfaces that
are arrowdinamicly needed are coverd with radar absorbing material, all
surfaces facing the direction of flight are oriantated such that an
incoming radar signal would be reflected up towards the sky.You'd still
paint the whole damn thing with anti radar reflecting paint just to keep
it completely visually "quite " to the radar source.
There is one other issue, An officer doesn't need to to catch you on
his radar gun to write out a citation, If he see's you and he thinks
your over the limit, thats all it takes, his radar just helps him to
quantify his estimate.
So to feel relatively safe I would suggest that a hypithetical ground
rocket should be painted with a visually dark gray radar absorbing paint
your jump suit also, make yourself an angular surfaced helmet and cover
it with the same material.
You will only ride at night, as such you have a switch to disable all
lights except the headlight which should be covered with an infared
filter (edmund scientific). then mount a pair of night vision goggles on
your helmet. Then you will be as set as you can be, other than your
motorcycles engine/exhaust noise he would never know what just went by.
Of course there would be some biggggg precautions:
1. ANY lights, be it from a car's turn signal, street lights, signs ect
would probably blind your night vision system while it's in your field
of view.
2. Since he can't see you, neither will anybody else on the road, so be
prepared to swerve out of other drivers way.
3. You can't out run a Motorola radio.
4. Don't ride the bike during the day, as you'd certanly have such a
...unique???.. looking machine, that it would be easily spotted.
Happy fanticies
LM
>Days Of Wild wrote:
>>
>> All of these DUMMAS threads are a waste.....
>
>Feel free to go else where.
>
>> What's your proof that a motorcycle is hard to detect???
>> Have you tried to radar a bike?
>> No!?!
I operated police RADAR for over 15 years, was one of the first two
certified RADAR operators in my department (first certified in 1979)
am still a licensed operator and have been a state certified police
RADAR instructor since 1980. (I don't work RADAR now since I am a
captain, but I am still licensed as a operator and instructor). I have
clocked many motorcycles over those years, both in traffic and alone.
It is not difficult to clock motorcycles if there are no other larger
targets in the area. If the bike is in heavy traffic, or in the
"shadow" of a larger target they are very hard to clock unless they
are very close, even when they are traveling substantially above the
speed of surrounding traffic. That has been my experience, confirmed
by my training. (And yes I drive motorcycles, and have for 21 years.
My present bike is a 1987 Kawaski Voyager XII)
Is that proof enough for you?
>Compare the frontal area of a car to a bike.
>
>> But yet Bike's are hard to detect?
>
>No one said that they were not detectable. not as easy to detect as a
>car or truck
That has been my experience.
>
>> Then explain MY $88 ticket?
If you were not in traffic, bikes are as easy to clock as anything
else, in traffic if you are paying attention, you should be able to
slow well before the RADAR has a chance to clock you. You can still
get a ticket however from the officer's observations of your actions
in traffic. RADAR is not the only method used to ticket speeders.
>
>You weren't paying attention and didn't see the cop until you were in
>his lap.
Probably exactly true. I recall one bike I caught traveling much
faster than other cars in the area, passing and weaving around heavy
traffic on a four lane road. The bike was obviously going 20+ MPH
faster than the other traffic, (the traffic mass was moving 30-35 MPH)
yet I could not get a good clock on him until the bike was within 200'
of me. He never saw me, even when I pulled out and paced him to
confirm my RADAR reading. I was operating an unmarked car, but even
unmarked cars are not difficult to spot.
Vince
APPLES AND ORANGES:
If you put radar right in front of a stealth plane... it will pick it up. If you
point traffic radar at a motorcycle from two miles away and it won't give an
accurate reading.
If you want to beat the radar drive next to a larger fast moving vehicle; the radar
will only record the largest object.
If there was a jamming/electronic technology, you might accomplish something.
Vince K.
Tom Keener
On Fri, 22 May 1998 17:08:23 GMT, nos...@faque.com (Ollie) wrote:
>
>I run a Valentine One on my bike (VTR1000).
Is there an inexpensive source for a Valentine One?
Tom Keener
keensurf_at_cts_dot_com
Some Guy on a Bike
keen...@cts.comEDITOUT (Tom Keener) whiled away the hours on Sat, 06
Jun 1998 18:05:49 GMT with the following:
>> I run a Valentine One on my bike (VTR1000).
> Is there an inexpensive source for a Valentine One?
AFAIK, Val-1s are available direct from the manufacturer only.
===========================================================================
Adam Wade espr...@winternet.com
CIMC #1 DoD #2009 LOMP #2 "The only way I'll stop riding
1976 Kawasaki KZ750 twin (Betty) is if I stop breathing."
http://www.winternet.com/~espresso
===========================================================================