Leaderboard

The Trailblazer I drive has virtually no dash mounting options and the floor console mounting would have been hitting my legs or whomever was in the passenger seat if I mounted it there. That and having to take my eyes off the road more than I would like to adjust volume or change the channel, etc. almost had me ordering the MXT275. But I discovered the Kenwood KRK-10 remote conversion kit for the TK-8180. I was lucky enough to find a listing on Ebay that had the TK-8180 with the KRK-10 kit together for a good price (Still less than what the MXT275 would have cost so I grabbed it.) and popped it in the Trailblazer. The main unit sits under the passenger seat which make the run to power fairly easy since the Trailblazer fuse panel is under the rear seat. The last piece I added to this was 16 key mic that Kenwood offered. Well it was a clone of the TK-686 mic. It's keys can be programmed for any function that is available on the front panel. It did not take long for muscle memory to kick in and now I can change/adjust anything I want and my eyes never leave the road for more than an instant IF I want to verify the change on the display.

Topic locked for the greater good.

You have some good points marcspaz. About it being market driven, wide band verses narrow band, could get a boost by the manufactures. If they are already narrow band compliant it would be a marketing incentive for them to point it out to customers. Second any wide band equipment only, mostly used, would be eliminated from the market. Now users are pushed into buying more from the narrow band new equipment market and less from now smaller compliant used equipment market. On the regulation front manufactures could point out to the FCC they have good sales of their narrow band radios and few requests for wide band equipment. The FCC could then infer the consumer has a preference for narrow band equipment, or at least don't find it a limiting factor in how they use their radios. Making a decision to go narrow band for GMRS would be an easy one I suspect for the FCC. On the engineering side of things it's rather a screwy situation where you have two different radio services assigned the same spectrum but with different technical specifications for bandwidth. If the goal was really to allow the two to interoperate the FCC screwed it up. Having one station on frequency running wide band and another running narrow band results in some annoying messing around with the volume control. It's either to loud or too soft depending on who is doing the RX'ing and the TX'ing. By the way this happens with DMR when people don't get their audio levels set right. One minute i can hardly hear one station and the other station blows be out of the chair.

My sons are 4 and 6. The older one is in kindergarten, and all the schools and parks are closed for COVID-19. They're at home all day, every day. We ride bikes and whatnot, but it's not the same as going to school and hanging with friends. I'm not paying for a phone for a 6 year old. So, why not get a few families in the neighborhood to get a GMRS license so all the kids can talk to one another any time they want? They're not close enough for FRS, but I think certainly GMRS will work. We haven't even bought devices, yet. I genuinely want to know if this is a bad idea before we move forward. To me, it seems like a great way to take advantage of the current "STAY HOME" situation to get kids interested in communications. Will other GMRS users be pissed off by a bunch of kids talking to each other all day? I plan to lock all their devices on a specific frequency, so they can't annoy anyone. How do we find a semi-private frequency no one is likely to use? If we need to use a local repeater to get across a hill, is it ok to ask, or would we get laughed at, or is it too big of an ask since they'll probably talk to each other way more than adults? We live in a small town in Alabama, about 6,500 population, all within 2 miles, and situated in a valley between mountains. One subdivision is over a hill, but the whole rest of town is probably in line-of-sight. Thanks for any advice.

I know I personally made a comment about sharing channels with kids... but the was me just being a smart aleck. I actually think it would be a great idea. I'm a dad and a grandfather, so i understand wanting to keep the kids engaged and having fun. It's a family friendly radio service by design. That said... with young people being among our most vulnerable, i would keep an ear open. My amateur radio club did something similar, hosting a Kids Night net every week, on Saturday. We have our kids and grandchildren get on the radio and talk to each other. They have a great time. Some of them like it so much that they are studying to get their license.

Very cool setup

2 points. #1. Consider that many people make their own "Ed Fong" antennas, some buy the kit, other's purchase a generic antenna for their desired band and still others order an antenna cut for a specific frequency. Thus, in addition to any issues about the effectiveness of the design, you have to consider all the other factors as well when evaluating user reports. #2. It is because of the toroidal propagation that the antenna achieves gain in a 360º pattern. Minimal energy wasted by being transmitted above or below the antenna's horizontal plane.

Wow... this is perfect! I couldn't agree more, with all of this. I can't understand for the life of me, why the FCC would have two distinctively different services, sharing frequencies. They didn't even bother setting a primary and secondary service.

i was browsing midland's site last night, and stumbled across the fact that the mxt275 control head accepts the same headset plug as their handhelds. while that's not such a thing in a car/truck (though, an interesting idea), it would be rather cool installed on a motorcycle with their in-helmet speakers and mic, and have a lot better range than most of the other motorcycle options on the market.

An "I think", I don't know that this would be easy to confirm. We could probably get sales data from manufacturers for 2 or 3 decades of sales, assume x% are no longer working and x% exported. It would still be a guess, but may be close. This brings three questions to mind for me. Who will do the leg-work? Will the manufacturers be willing to play ball? Would polling the user community have any value? I think the same as above. We would have to poll manufacturing data... though that should be a bit easier since the performance data is public information. Anecdotally, no Midland radios I have owned have WB. All of my BTechs did both. I believe this is a commercially driven, supply side debate, more of a 'what if'. If the demand is there and manufactures are willing to invest in the market, then that would swing policy more so than the individual users, such as family units. That said, obviously, you can't completely rule out the Legislature and/or the FCC following the natural flow in a direction of all NB. Agreed. They also did it with Citizens Band, deregulating that (for the most part) and getting rid of license requirements.

Marc. I think he is saying the FRS radios can transmit simplex on the repeater output frequencies. He is not saying they can transmit through the repeater. However, I think you are right, Like you, I am done with this discussion, and as well, I think this topic is done. Could a moderator please close it.

Now I know you are a troll. I'm done.

Nope.... Dude... words have meaning. You can't transmit on a repeater output unless you're on the input. You even highlighted it above. You doubling down on the wrong thing doesn't make you correct.

Russ... this is 100% factually incorrect. Based on Code of Federal Regulations, FRS radios are not permitted to transmit on the repeater input frequencies, therefore will never be heard on a repeat output. They are explicitly only allowed to transmit on the allocated simplex frequencies. In fact, the ability to transmit on any frequency beyond the 22 simplex frequencies assigned to the FRS would automatically disqualify any transceiver from getting its part 95 FRS certification. Only part 95 certified GMRS radios are permitted to transmit on the repeater input frequencies, and that requires a GMRS operator's license. Considering I have spent the last 22 years as independent consultant for the US federal government (17+ for local government), specializing in providing emergency communications sustainment and restoration support to critical communications infrastructure, I am pretty sure I am a bit more in tune with what is happening in the industry, than what you are giving me credit for.

Once again, for some reason the original post has been edited, but in this case, the subject line sums up the original question, and several posts agreed on a valid answer. There is already a well established "Highway" or "Travel Channel" for GMRS, and it is 462.675 with a CTCSS Tone of 141.3Hz. Again, on a Midland MicroMobile, (and many other GMRS or Combo radios) that would be channel 20 with a "Privacy Code" of 22. (However, check your radio's owner's manual for the privacy or quiet code that matches 141.3 Hz. Not all radios are mapped the same for these codes.) This frequency can be used in repeater mode, or simplex if a repeater is not available in the area. ...and if you don't want to miss any possible action, then use WRAF233's suggestion, and just set the radio to "SCAN". Also of note, just yesterday, I was traveling on US HWY 81 in North Central Kansas, and heard 2 truckers using channel 20-22.

Not all base antennas can be secured to a 3/4" pipe though. And depending on the antenna they use, the 3/4" could bend in higher winds which is why my go-to is 1-1.5" 1/8" thick galvanized pipe. Its heavy, but it works and lasts.

Your callsign was in today's update that just came in. You should be able to register now. Seems the FCC is an extra day behind this week.

Just get both.