FiveFilter
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2016
- Messages
- 308
There's a lot of scare-mongering going on here.
I've been using mag mount antennas for a couple of decades now without the car-destroying scratches being depicted by some. I use mag mounts because I have several vehicles and use a radio only for certain occasions, so don't want a permanent setup which includes a hole in the roof.
If one is reasonably careful in placing and removing the magnet, eg not mindlessly dragging the magnet over the paint, there will be no damage; At least, there has been no value-destroying damage on the vehicles I've been using mag mounts on since about 1995.
And if the antenna coax is found to cause some abrasion from wind movement, I use a small piece or two of duct tape to keep it down where it is moving. It takes a second or two to place, and the tape is easily removed. No big deal.
And about the heralded performance differential: my radios with mag mounts seem to communicate as well as any other mobile units out there, watt for watt. I haven't tested the specifics myself, but I've read about tests done by others that show the performance difference with a mag mount to be about 0.1dB additional loss when compared to a permanent mount. Big deal. Sure, I guess you can say the hole will yield a better performance, but you also can say that only sensitive equipment will detect the difference; human ears generally not included. So why the exaggeration in this thread?
For some reason, some folks just seem to have a mission in life to throw shade on those of us who choose to not drive around with an extra hole. It seems to be almost like a religion, with the infidels put to shame. Come on. Each approach has its benefits. Enough with the exaggerations.
I've been using mag mount antennas for a couple of decades now without the car-destroying scratches being depicted by some. I use mag mounts because I have several vehicles and use a radio only for certain occasions, so don't want a permanent setup which includes a hole in the roof.
If one is reasonably careful in placing and removing the magnet, eg not mindlessly dragging the magnet over the paint, there will be no damage; At least, there has been no value-destroying damage on the vehicles I've been using mag mounts on since about 1995.
And if the antenna coax is found to cause some abrasion from wind movement, I use a small piece or two of duct tape to keep it down where it is moving. It takes a second or two to place, and the tape is easily removed. No big deal.
And about the heralded performance differential: my radios with mag mounts seem to communicate as well as any other mobile units out there, watt for watt. I haven't tested the specifics myself, but I've read about tests done by others that show the performance difference with a mag mount to be about 0.1dB additional loss when compared to a permanent mount. Big deal. Sure, I guess you can say the hole will yield a better performance, but you also can say that only sensitive equipment will detect the difference; human ears generally not included. So why the exaggeration in this thread?
For some reason, some folks just seem to have a mission in life to throw shade on those of us who choose to not drive around with an extra hole. It seems to be almost like a religion, with the infidels put to shame. Come on. Each approach has its benefits. Enough with the exaggerations.