Radar invisible car???

Jim Yanik wrote:
> "Larry Bud" > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
>
>>
>>Jim Yanik wrote:
>>
>>>"Larry Bud" > wrote in
egroups.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>For the last couple of weeks there's been a roadside radar in my
>>>>neighborhood. I've driven by it about 5 times and it COMPLETELY is
>>>>incorrect in reading my vette. It reads 18-20 MPH when I'm going
>>>>35-40.
>>>>
>>>>I'm certainly not complaining, but wondering if radar is
>>>>inheriently bad at reading a low profile car like mine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Vettes have a fiberglas body,a radiator that leans downward,thus
>>>creating a low radar profile. I read that in a Car and Driver mag
>>>several years ago.
>>
>>The radiator in a C4 is not slanted at all.
>>
>>
>
>
> Note I was referring to an article SEVERAL YEARS AGO.
> Forgive me for trying to help you.
>

Doesn't matter; I was unable to find a cutaway of a C4 during a quick
search but the C5 (practically the same car) is obviously slanted as
well as the C6. I'm certain that the C3 was as well.

I find it really hard to believe that Larry could be correct on this one.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Well, those radar trailers are pretty bad...

I've gone over/under the speedometer by over 20% many, many times.

For example, on Ingrahm St in 92109 near the bridge to Sea World I was
clocked at 48 in a 30mph, when the speedometer said 33 mph in a '96
Chevy Cavalier.

Later that week, in a Chevy Silverado 1500 I was clocked at about 20,
going 30, a the same spot. I had to take my '83 mustang there, to
check it out, and that was the only car that it got right at about 30
in a 30.

(Yeah, I'm that prick in the right lane going the speed limit in San
Diego - screw all you tourists, I'll let you finance the city's general
fund.)

Dave

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>
> On 31 May 2005 05:57:45 -0700, "Larry Bud" >
> wrote:
>
> >For the last couple of weeks there's been a roadside radar in my
> >neighborhood. I've driven by it about 5 times and it COMPLETELY is
> >incorrect in reading my vette. It reads 18-20 MPH when I'm going
> >35-40.
> >
> >I'm certainly not complaining, but wondering if radar is inheriently
> >bad at reading a low profile car like mine.
>
> Don't I wish!
>
> Despite the plastic body, low profile, and HID projector headlamps
> (which lack the huge reflectors of older types of headlights) I've
> driven past those signs and they have shown an accurate reading on my
> C6.
>
> I think that sign is just on the fritz.

You are probably correct. However, I seem to recall that
many years ago Car and Driver (1977 through ?) did tests
were they measured the acquisition range of radar for
certain cars. The 70's era Vette was particularly stealthy.
The later model Vette's were not as good. As I recall, C&D
claimed this was because the older Vettes had the radiator
mounted at an angle, while in newer models it was more or
less vertical. The angled radiator acted to deflect a major
portion of the radar signal away from the transmistter. The
vertical radiator reflected most of the signal back towards
the transmitter.

One guy has a chart from the 1979 C&D Test that listed
distances for various vehicle (see
http://www.radardetector.net/viewtop...=1046&start=15
). The Corvette tested at that time had by far the shortest
detection distance - 520 feet. A Honda Civic was next at
1090 feet. A Ford 9000 Truck was 7670 feet.

I always though by 1972 Pinto was invisible to radar.....Or
maybe the cops just didn't believe it could go fast enough
to bother.


Ed

> Doesn't matter; I was unable to find a cutaway of a C4 during a quick
> search but the C5 (practically the same car) is obviously slanted as
> well as the C6. I'm certain that the C3 was as well.
>
> I find it really hard to believe that Larry could be correct on this one.
>

Sorry, but I know my car inside and out: rebuilt the engine, swapped a
tranny, replaced the radiator and nearly every part on this car. The
C4 radiator is vertical.

"Obviously" slanted? Why would you say that?

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>I passed one of those trailers in the construction zone on I-10 on
>Saturday. As I approached it (at 55 MPH, the posted limit), it read 71
>MPH. A few seconds later I was passed on the left by an SUV. Clearly
>the trailer had locked onto a different vehicle, even though it was
>farther away.

The radar cross section of a vehicle can vary by a factor of 10-100
with only a small change in angle. That translates to a factor of
2-3 in detection range for identical vehicles.

SUVs have a big disadvantage in the radar game because of the large,
flat body panels. (Same for laser.)

--
John Carr )

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 22:42:13 -0400, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
> >>>The radiator in a C4 is not slanted at all.
> >>
> >> Note I was referring to an article SEVERAL YEARS AGO.
> >> Forgive me for trying to help you.
> >
> >Doesn't matter; I was unable to find a cutaway of a C4 during a quick
> >search but the C5 (practically the same car)
>
> The C5 is an entirely different car than the C4, starting with the
> hydroformed frame rails and working up. Even the Corvette logos are
> different. But that's neither here nor there WRT the angle at which
> the radiator is mounted.
>
> Here's a picture of a C4 engine compartment:
>
> http://www.corvettetrader.com/pictur...ette9072-5.jpg
>
> The radiator doesn't look particularly slanted to me...
>

huh? the pic you posted shows the rad slanted forward at an angle I'm
guesstimating to be about 10-15 degrees...

If nothing else, there's no way to get enough cooling capacity in a V-8
powered car with a frontal shape like a 'vette without using a slanted
radiator.

nate

Larry Bud wrote:
> > Doesn't matter; I was unable to find a cutaway of a C4 during a quick
> > search but the C5 (practically the same car) is obviously slanted as
> > well as the C6. I'm certain that the C3 was as well.
> >
> > I find it really hard to believe that Larry could be correct on this one.
> >
>
> Sorry, but I know my car inside and out: rebuilt the engine, swapped a
> tranny, replaced the radiator and nearly every part on this car. The
> C4 radiator is vertical.
>
> "Obviously" slanted? Why would you say that?

see the pic that another poster just posted... it is slanted...

nate

N8N wrote:
> Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 May 2005 22:42:13 -0400, Nate Nagel >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >>>The radiator in a C4 is not slanted at all.
> > >>
> > >> Note I was referring to an article SEVERAL YEARS AGO.
> > >> Forgive me for trying to help you.
> > >
> > >Doesn't matter; I was unable to find a cutaway of a C4 during a quick
> > >search but the C5 (practically the same car)
> >
> > The C5 is an entirely different car than the C4, starting with the
> > hydroformed frame rails and working up. Even the Corvette logos are
> > different. But that's neither here nor there WRT the angle at which
> > the radiator is mounted.
> >
> > Here's a picture of a C4 engine compartment:
> >
> > http://www.corvettetrader.com/pictur...ette9072-5.jpg
> >
> > The radiator doesn't look particularly slanted to me...
> >
>
> huh? the pic you posted shows the rad slanted forward at an angle I'm
> guesstimating to be about 10-15 degrees...
>
> If nothing else, there's no way to get enough cooling capacity in a V-8
> powered car with a frontal shape like a 'vette without using a slanted
> radiator.
>

Yes there is. There's a lower spoiler which redirects air up through
the condensor, back through to the radiator which sits about 3" behind
it. Both are completely vertical.

In article ws.net>,
says...
>
>
>
>>>It's not your car. Radar is very inaccurate. In fact, it probably
>>>shouldn't be used for speed measurement at all. -Dave
>>
>> Radar is actually very accurate. What is inaccurate is the interpretation
>> of the readings. Traffic radar does not tell you what object is causing
>> the
>> reading, so you have to guess. The guessing part is where most mistakes
>> are
>> made.
>
>But if you are the only moving object in the area and the reading is wrong,

Radar has a pretty long range under ideal conditions. It could be picking up
an object you can't see. Same thing could happen when a cop is using radar.

>that means that the radar is inaccurate, and there is nothing to interpret.

No, it just means you can't see the same object the radar is tracking.

>It is not uncommon for a radar reading to be WAY OFF, even if it is reading
>the only moving object in front of it. -Dave

Unless the radar is not working properly, that is usually not the case. The
problem is with the person guessing improperly what the radar is measuring.
-------------
Alex

In article >,
says...


>Here's a picture of a C4 engine compartment:
>http://www.corvettetrader.com/pictur...ette9072-5.jpg
>The radiator doesn't look particularly slanted to me...

It looks slanted to me. It looks like the top edge is leaning forward.
---------------
Alex