The Fury uses FHSS, why?

J

JoshT

New member
I'm sorry if I am bursting anyone's bubble here, but I'm baffled why anyone would put a 900MHz FHSS transceiver in a game call. I'm referring to the new Fury. First, you have to crank the output power up 6dB (that's 4x the power) to get the same range as the 418MHz transmitters just due to the loss of going to twice the frequency.

Next, if you guys plan to use these things within 20 miles of oil and gas fields (or any utility), you are probably going to get jammed. All of the rigs use excessively high gain 900MHz FHSS radios to pump data back to their base stations, and believe me--the spectrum is crowded out there with these data radios and their repeaters. Ironically, 900MHz is actually the most crowded spectrum in remote locations because of this. Whereas, 418MHz is ideal for a remote control, because it is narrow band, the lower frequency automatically doubles the distance (with the same power), the band is super quiet, and it is what the 418MHz band was intended for--remote controls. Plus, 400MHz *bends* twice as much around hills and trees.

Let me just say this one last thing, and I will get off my soap box. It only takes one week to get approval through the FCC for FHSS radios, once your independent lab has tested and show that you pass. I would guess that FoxPro is fighting the power they need to output, because they now have to abide by the requirements stating the transmitter has to be a certain distance from the human body. I sure hope they SAR test it. In short, FHSS is designed for high data transfer, and it's a technique (bandaid) used in the ISM 900MHz band to avoid getting jammed--because it is crowded! Or, it could be they are not passing FCC because they aren't any good at designing transmitters that can pass the harmonic requirements. At any rate, I wish everybody would quite blaming the FCC for holding up the Fury.

The greater distance argument doesn't hold much water with me. The only advantage, if there is one, is that the higher frequency will help some with the Fresnel zone, but that's a stretch. The distance they will gain over 418MHz will have to come at the expense higher transmit power (i.e. more battery power). Besides, the 418MHz callers out there
get plenty of distance at much much lower output power. 100-200 yards with a 418MHz is enough for me. What a ridiculous solution.

Josh

P.S. Bottom line, my guess is that FoxPro is late because they didn't do their homework when they designed the call, and now they are surprised in the qualification lab, and have a load of delivery requirements. All of this to get a link from the receiver back to the remote. Thanks, but I'll just use my ears. Let's all lay off the FCC, it's not their fault.
 
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif
 
Glad you felt the same way Rick. I've read this a couple of time, and guess I'm net technically savvy enough to get it. My initial response was "I like tater tots".
 
And you joined here just to educate us in electronics engineering? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif

I'm sure credit would be given with the right qualifications, if posted, but this being the only post, it kind makes one wonder what motives you have...??

I guess a country boy like me just needs to know that something works & calls varmints.

Evidently it already called a varmint... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I trust that someone that has been in business for years & years with relatively few technical problems, and terrific customer service might have a clue as to what goes into making a successful caller.

I think that speaks worlds of volume.
 
That is quite a first post there Josh.

I have no idea if you have any idea of what your talking about. But my guess is that your guess is at least partially correct. Possibly way more than partially.

We shall see, eventually.
 
Sorry, this is what happens when I get a couple beers in me--I get in rant. I just don't like to see the hunters get fed some koolaid that FHSS is some great solution, because it's not.

When you are shopping for a game call, I would suggest that you look for a 418MHz transmitter. Avoid FHSS if you can. Maybe they will sell the fury at 418MHz down the road.
 
Quote:
Sorry, this is what happens when I get a couple beers in me--I get in rant.



Yup...drinking and posting are about as good of an idea as drinking and driving. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
 
Gosh, Josh, I think you may be full of something besides beer. If you think for a minute that the guys at Foxpro haven't put proper planning in the Fury project, you are seriously mistaken. I would suggest you wait like the rest of us to see the finished product and how it works before you start ranting about technical stuff very few of us have a clue about. I know Foxpro's approach to quality and customer service, and there is no way they have put this much effort into a caller that is not battery friendly and user friendly.
 
Hey, I didn't say it wouldn't work, I was just saying that I think 400MHz is better, and most importantly---why. If FoxPro was good at designing products, they wouldn't be stuck in FCC testing, plain and simple. No radios companies I have ever worked for have been stuck in FCC testing, because we test BEFORE we go to the lab! If you want to wrap yourself in the FoxPro flag and not open your mind to what's going on, then just do it. I don't care.
 
Last edited:
Rockinbar,

There is no doubt that FoxPro has built some great products over the years, but that doesn't mean you should just stick your head in the sand. Every company makes bad moves, despite their track record. Look what happen to our automobile manufacturers. At one time, they were great, and now they suck. Bad decisions happen, I am just pointing out one. Getting stuck in FCC is a sign that proper testing was not done, which is a lack of attention to detail. I would suggest that you open your mind a little.

Josh

P.S. I'm a country boy too. I grew up on skipping school and hunting. Is that enough credentials for you?
 
Quote:
Rockinbar,

P.S. I'm a country boy too. I grew up on skipping school and hunting. Is that enough credentials for you?



Ease up there killer. I think we get it that you have concerns over the design. That said, I doubt anyone is going to give much if any weight to what is self reported as a rant. I'm sure FP will respond to the concern and shed some light on the issues your raise.
 
Thanks bowhunt, you are a beaming star of calmness. Just because you don't take stock in what I say, and because I say it was a rant, doesn't meant it's not thoughtful and correct. Take it how you want....killer.
 
So, let me get this straight. You've been here all of 10 minutes, you've gone on a self proclaimed rant where you also admit it's alcohol fueled at the same time try to drag down a company who's reputation is second to none. And were supposed to believe you over a company who has demonstrated their knowlege via their products and service for years? Please, keep up flaming and enjoy your stay while it lasts. May want to vist the TOS.
 
Bobhunt,

Okay, so I've had some sleep, reread everything I wrote--yep, nothing there that isn't technically sound. Why don't you argue against my logic with respect to radio system design, manufacturing processes, ect? If you want to attack me personally, then fine. It just makes me not have any respect for you.

I will say it again, I think FoxPro has built some fine quality stuff in the "past". What I am seeing going on now, coupled with my experience, says they are really dropping the ball. That's all. I appologize if this ruffles your feathers, it's just simple logic to me. I truely hope they have another good product here, I just think using FHSS is a mistake. Maybe another technical person will chime in and either back me up or provide sound arguements against what I have wrote.

Josh
 
Last edited:
What, exactly, are you trying to accomplish, by coming in here, "bursting bubbles", "ruffling feathers", and dragging down a site sponsor who has provided a fine product for these members, for all these years?
Whatever your motives are, your message has been lost in your manner. You have failed miserably.
Perhaps, writing a letter to FoxPro, instead of publicly making a childish scene, would serve you better.
Please don't respond, it's free advice....take it or leave it.
 
CrazyHorse,

I'm not trying to drag down FoxPro. I am providing a technical discussion on one topic...FHSS, and discussing thier approach with FCC testing, and what it means to me. Your frustration is probably due to your lack of understanding what I am talking about, or it's just the brand loyalty talking (blindness). Eitherway, I'm sorry if I have offended you.

I thought this forum was about e-callers. I didn't know you couldn't talk about the largest e-caller manufacturer in the industry. Seems like a rediculous rule, if that's the case.

Josh
 
Last edited:
josh

Are there 900mz FHSS modules or chips that are already approved for use by the FCC? If so why not use them in the application?
 
Hi Dentra,

That's a good point. There are a lot of good 900MHz modules out there, the problem is most likely cost. I think the cheapest that output +20dBm run in the $20 range in volume. If you need one on both ends, you are looking at a $40 cost to your bill of materials. That's pretty steep. It sure would have got them to market faster though.

Do you know of a good (sound quality) caller? I have been in the market for a while. The sound quality is one thing that can't be expressed on a web page.

Josh
 
Last edited:
I haven't made the argument that your not being technically sound. I do question you intentions of your post. If it is truly a question, you could have easily framed that way, and requested FP to respond. Instead you started to make antagonistic remarks that tend to piss people off. All this and you managed it in your first post. I have no doubt your opinions are based it a fair amount of knowlege, but if your delivery stays what it is, your not going to get much positive feedback. Choose not to respect me all you want, I could care less, but it is true. Good luck with your answer, if you really want one.
 
Back
Top