Manufacturers power and range claims exposed!

FRS / GMRS Radios
21

Thank you again for your viewpoint.

Your lack of understanding how the squelching circuits attenuate the received signals is one source for you not being able to identify the new range climes from the older one"s

That is a shame as all of your past standard references are no longer available for any correlating.

I do not agree with this and I maybe wrong but I did not see that antenna gain (in this case the lack of gain) is specified by the commissions type acceptance requirements.

In order to have “pure” test results a level setting or standard reference must be made by first employing something OTHER then the unit under test. Hence the need for a different unit as a reference to make the comparison against.

As an example antenna gain is a comparison of the unit under test against another non similar unit as the reference and in the case with antennas, the 1/4 wave length ground plain is usually the reference level set at 0DBi.

This is the major falsely to your range testing results!

The squelch is NEVER enabled with any manufacture testing on range as it would reduce from yielding a greater net result.

Since the squelch circuits are not adjustable on most FRS units, the threshold setting is an ARBITRARY setting employing fixed values of +/- 5 to 10% tolerance typically of the setting resisters and is at some predetermined setting WELL above the capturing thresholds of any receivers worst case signal to noise capabilities.

If so how then can they expect to come anywhere close to the range climes when
the manufacture clearly states in every operating manual something to the effects of

“AUTO SQUELCH/MAXIMUM RANGE
Auto Squelch, which automatically shuts OFF weak transmissions and unwanted noise. This reduces the MAXIMUM RANGE at which signals can be heard” {COBRA micro talk}

In that case you have changed the standards and you should explain this fact to everyone that apples are now oranges .

That maybe the case, however if so then they must be told to disregard power as well when selecting a unit. I do not necessarily agree with that.

This may also be true but I bet dollars to doughnuts the squelches are defeated in ALL cases with the specification writings.

22

Again. I review for “real world use”, under real world conditions.

Very few users operate with the squelch open.

You may accept my reviews or you may not. I believe you are overanalyzing
and trying to nit-pick and find fault with everything I state. I’ll not be baited into an agrument.
Expect no further communication from me.

23

It is not my intent to engage you in any argument or to appear to be nit-picking your comments, I am only attempting to point out to you and the other readers on this forum that range has a lot more then output power behind the discrepancies between your method of measuring it and that of the manufactures way of specifying range climes.

After all was this not the intent of this thread?

Certainly you as an experienced and licensed Amateur Radio operator can understand better then most of our board members the importance of test measurement standards and the methods that drove the test results and how they were obtained.

Just my way of attempting to state the facts as they apply to the manufactures range and power climes V/s your method of measurement.

The two different schools of thought is the primary accountable differences that you have with the longer range clams that they make and that you would like to see them change.

No personal offence was intended, just stating the facts as I see them expressed by others.

24

My methods of measurement were simple. You take a set of radios and go away from each other until reliable communications becomes impossible. I then take the distance between the two radios, and thussly come up with my ranges. This is realistic. This is what people want to see. These are cold, hard, facts. I experienced these ranges. This is a fact. As such, it was reported in my review.

Are my experiences exactly what others will experience? Most certainly not!

Are people going to get the ranges cited by manufacturers? I find that hard to believe, when my UHF handheld with a gain antenna, and real 5 watt output can’t get 25 or 26 miles. For that matter, putting it on my J-pole base antenna,(2.5 dB gain) I can’t even get 25 miles to another station.

No intricate measurement standards are needed, my reviews are based on what a normal person, taking the radios out of the package, and using them, would experience, based on average conditions.

25

Thank you for not refusing to respond to my last post, at last you posted comments that I find impossible to find exception with.

The testing that you have been reporting on I am sure many members will find very helpful with making a selection of a new FRS/GMRS unit and so far to date no one else including myself has had the motivation to attempt, and for that a big thank you!

I myself have also built a 4 bay J-pole antenna with a theoretical gain of 9 DBi and made some range testing and also cannot confirm any range exciding 10 miles within the city of Phoenix Az. but that in its self is also a different test standard.

The above test that I did is not even within the scope of anything normal, it is just part of MY own desire to see how much performance that I can get from my conceptual standpoint.

Anyone with any radio knowledge understands that the same radio test done at a different time of the year may also yield a different range do to if nothing else has changed, troposphere changes. The problem is that John Doe Hunter has no radio knowledge and wants the manufacture to tell him the range of the units that he intends to use.

For the FRS/GMRS user the normal specification given to transceivers are meaningless so the manufactures were forced to come up with another non technical performance rating system to be derived for them.

If ALL interferences to the test radio frequencies is removed then a more repeatable range rating system could be used for that application.

On open water or land with nothing in the near R.F. field and where the receiving station can be seen would yield a more repeatable range rating approximating the one’s that we see today on the packages of those units. Some ratings may not measure the range with both sending and receiving antennas inline horizontally and so even this system has inherent bias.

I do not find fault with YOUR measurement standard provided that the folks interpreting your data understand the differences between your method and how the manufactures are deriving a completely different end result rating.

My only suggestion with your range testing would be once you find the limit with the squelch circuity engaged it would also be interesting to turn off all squelches then step and repeat testing from that last point and report at what additional range the signals can be readable.

Thank you for your understanding with these discrepancies.

26

OK… I think now we each understand where the other is coming from. :slight_smile: I will take your suggestion into consideration, and using the same test criteria, disable the squelch and see what difference it makes. I suppose I can have a maximum total range and maximum effective range.

27

Thanks for the information. I am appalled at the two way radio companies for their “advertised power and range.” I cannot seem to get either of the links to work. I was wondering if anyone had checked the actual output on the Cobra LI7000’s they claim 5 watts but as we all now know that is probably false. If anyone could post that I would be very grateful. I cannot seem to find an affordable set of powerful radios. JWilkers what is the best range radio you have tested thus far? The LI6000’s aren’t too bad i have gotten out about 5 miles with them across town. I am trying out a set of moto 9500’s and they are pretty good. But the LI7000’s are the one’s I am wondering about.

28

The LI7000 has a 1.25 watt output. I haven’t reviewed one of those yet. The best I’ve tested so far is the Midland GXT 850, which I did a review on. It didn’t make 5 miles, but then, you need to take into consideration the suburban environment I was in.

29

very rural where i’m from, but I did notice that you said the gxt’s were the best you had tested so far so i ordered a set of gxt 800’s didn’t need the animal calls or anything. so thanks for the recommendation :slight_smile:

30

Glad to be of help :slight_smile:

31

I’m not sure if I’m reading the FCC data correctly but for the Garmin Rino 530 (FCC = IPH00861) the output for GMRS appears to be 4.6 watts and for FRS it’s the full 0.5 watts. I recently spent 8 days in the Boundary Waters with my 530 but unfortunately didn’t get a good chance to check out the range of the RINO’s radio as some members of our party had only FRS radios. I’d be interested to hear from someone that has access to two RINOs as to their range.

32

Of possible interest to some here, I checked the FCC specs for the Motorola T8500 and, as reported elsewhere on this forum, found GMRS output at 0.68 watts and FRS output at 0.26 watts. On the same FCC site, under details, the users manual is available and says the following:

“Your radio has 22 channels. Channels 8-14 are FRS 0.5 Watt only and all other channels are GMRS. […] When the radio is on a 0.5 watt channel, * displays. When the radio is on a 1 watt channel, + displays.”
[* and + represent different symbols]

So both sets of wattage figures are given to the FCC but only the “rounded figures” are available to the inquiring public from Motorola. This is incorrect rounding, of course. Sounding 0.26 to one significant digit gives you 0.3, not 0.5. Rounding 0.68 gives 0.7, not 1.0.