Another GMRS CCR offering from Baofeng - IP67 rated - the UV-9G

[WyoJoe]

While browsing Amazon, I just spotted another GMRS radio offering from Baofeng.

Here's a link: https://www.amazon.com/BAOFENG-Waterproof-Outdoors-Rechargeable-Programming/dp/B098JGLWZ1/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=uv-9g&qid=1628364257&s=electronics&sr=1-4

The new radio is the UV-9G, and it's touted as being waterproof with an IP67 rating.

It looks like the same radio as the UV-9R and GT-3WP models (but with different firmware), and appears to be based on the UV-82 model.

This will likely compete directly with the B-Tech GMRS-V1. It's a similar radio for less money, and it's waterproof too.

 

[JeepCrawler98]

That links to a battery pack; but here's this: https://www.radioddity.com/products/baofeng-uv9g

Run of the mill CCR of course; but this is interesting:

Quote

"Extend DIY CH] UV-9G has set 31-54 CH as DIY repeater channels except for the common 23-30 CH. So you have a total of 4 groups of repeating frequencies to set different CTCSS/DCS and reduce the interruptions. Have fun with your team!"

About time another consumer oriented radio shop (other than Wouxun) quit the "you can only have 30 channels" BS.

Edited August 7, 2021 by JeepCrawler98
Formatting.

[WyoJoe]

13 minutes ago, JeepCrawler98 said:

That links to a battery pack; but here's this: https://www.radioddity.com/products/baofeng-uv9g

Run of the mill CCR of course; but this is interesting:

About time another consumer oriented radio shop (other than Wouxun) quit the "you can only have 30 channels" BS.

I fixed the link in my earlier post.

Agreed that this is another run-of-the-mill CCRs, but it does provide waterproofing that not many other radios offer.

I don't know how good the waterproofing is, but it should at least help protect the radio from water damage.

[ShapdCrusadr]

If the Baofeng UV-9G does in fact let people setup memory slots 31-54 for repeaters right from the keypad.

That by it self will make it worth buying that model of Baofeng GMRS instead of the other Baofeng models like the UV-5X.  I find only having memory slots 1-30 available right out of the box like the Baofeng UV-5X for TX/RX is outright dumb.

[WyoJoe]

7 minutes ago, WRNP596 said:

If the Baofeng UV-9G does in fact let people setup memory slots 31-54 for repeaters right from the keypad.

That by it self will make it worth buying that model of Baofeng GMRS instead of the other Baofeng models like the UV-5X.  I find only having memory slots 1-30 available right out of the box like the Baofeng UV-5X for TX/RX is outright dumb.

Agreed. That is probably the biggest shortcoming of the UV-5X (now called UV-5G) GMRS radio (aside from the fact that it's still a CCR). It is now supported in Chirp (as the UV-5G), but even though you can program additional channels, you cannot transmit on those channels, even when they are within the GMRS frequencies. At least that has been my experience.

Other radios like the Radioddity GM-30 and Tidradio TD-H5 do allow you to add additional channels, and you can transmit on those added channels if they are in the GMRS band. This radio appears to offer similar functionality, but also adds waterproofing/water resistance. I suspect it will also get Chirp support very quickly as it's based on other supported models. I believe the board it uses is the same as the UV-82 (which the B-Tech GMRS-V1 is based on), so it may already work with Chirp, but I don't know yet if so.

[MozartMan]

Video review from Randy (NotaRubicon Productions). 
He is very funny guy: "No Chinglish here" 

 

[bobthetj03]

I'll let you know. Ordered one yesterday. Comes with a programming cable too. 

 

[daschnoz]

Lost me at rechargeable. 

Dead battery, swap it out for a charged one.  Back in business within seconds.

[OffRoaderX]

Updated review of the UV-9G - it does have some issues, but still - a waterproof radio for only $40 is a great deal for normal people that just want something rugged to talk on.. I say, $ for $, maybe the best you can find.

 

[MichaelLAX]

I've read that the UV-9G is only FCC Part 95 certified for narrowband communications.

[JeepCrawler98]

15 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:

I've read that the UV-9G is only FCC Part 95 certified for narrowband communications.

You’re right: https://www.google.com/amp/s/fccid.io/2AJGM-P52UV/amp

That’s pretty ridiculous and should be a total deal breaker.

The tested (and therefore actual approved configuration) also shows an integral antenna and not the removable one they’re selling now; wonderful. Sounds like these things are not technically legal as sold and if they’re set to wideband.

Edited August 12, 2021 by JeepCrawler98

[MichaelLAX]

Interestingly enough, in Randy Notarubicon’s updated video tonight, he quotes Baofeng’s response as they will change the default to wideband, except for the interstitial channels.

Maybe they’ll open up the Ham bands, too!! 

[n1das]

Another CCR.  *SIGHE*

No thanks.

 

[OffRoaderX]

On 8/11/2021 at 4:05 AM, MichaelLAX said:

I've read that the UV-9G is only FCC Part 95 certified for narrowband communications.

Someone had asked about this on the Amazon page for the radio and the Baofeng rep said this was a mistake .. Unfortunately since then some clown on youtube made some videos about the radio and they are now sold-out, and I cant even find the listing on amazon so I can't confirm/quote exactly what they said.

It would seem highly unusual that this type of "mistake" could be made... But as I mentioned to @JeepCrawler98over in the Youtubes, 98% of the people that will be buying this radio don't care.

[MozartMan]

37 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said:

and I cant even find the listing on amazon so I can't confirm/quote exactly what they said.

Here is the link:

https://www.amazon.com/BAOFENG-Waterproof-Outdoors-Rechargeable-Programming/dp/B098JGLWZ1

[JeepCrawler98]

44 minutes ago, MozartMan said:

Here is the link:

https://www.amazon.com/BAOFENG-Waterproof-Outdoors-Rechargeable-Programming/dp/B098JGLWZ1

Not finding the review or Q&A on the narrowband statement; but this was along the same lines:

Quote

Why is this advertised as a 5w radio? fcc certification says erp is only 3.9w
Answer:UV-9G is a 5W/1W radio. It shows 3W on the part 95E Certification -- it's due to the lack of battery power when testing UV-9G, so only 3W is displayed. BAOFENG is contacting the certification lab to re-test and strive to correct the power on part95E certification. Thanks for reminding this!
By Radioddity SELLER  on August 6, 2021

No, Baofeng; this means the radio is legal to emit 3.08W and meet its spectral and safety requirements - not 5W. They need to find a better testing agency if they keep making 'mistakes' like this.

I don't rag on CCR's more than I need to; aside from their dead-horse-beating receiver problems I like them because they make radio accessible and absolutely should have a market share for the consumer crowd so long as they're legal to spectral requirements, and I'm excited to see a growing number of compliant CCR's in our midst, but this is absolute crap.

Edited August 12, 2021 by JeepCrawler98
I r TyPe GoOdLy!

[n4gix]

2 minutes ago, JeepCrawler98 said:

Why is this advertised as a 5w radio? fcc certification says erp is only 3.9w

ERP = Effective Radiated Power

This is a measurement of the absolute power at the antenna. While the finals may be adjusted for 5watt output, by the time feed losses and filter losses are taken into account, there will be some loss of power.

[JeepCrawler98]

33 minutes ago, n4gix said:

ERP = Effective Radiated Power

This is a measurement of the absolute power at the antenna. While the finals may be adjusted for 5watt output, by the time feed losses and filter losses are taken into account, there will be some loss of power.

Which as I pointed out in an earlier post is another flaw in the certification - they measured ERP alone because it was tested with an integral antenna so that's the right unit of measure and is appropriate in that configuration. But that's not what they're selling.

This radio is shipped to the consumer with a removable antenna, meaning we can hook up the gains to it. The radio should be tested also based on transmitter output, not just ERP, if they want to sell it with removable antennas.

See product as tested: https://fccid.io/2AJGM-P52UV/Internal-Photos/Internal-photos-5110431

edit:

For example; here's a report on a Kenwood TK3180 where it's done right. https://fccid.io/ALH37333110/RF-Exposure-Info/SAR-test-report-424905.pdf (SAR - exposure safety) and https://fccid.io/ALH37333110/Test-Report/test-report-424900.pdf (for emissions masks, based on conducted power, appropriate because of the removable antenna)

Multiple antennas tested, multiple batteries tested, and a max conducted power rating is given based on actual measurement. In contrast, the UV9G also gives a maximum rated transmitter power (not tested, based on manufacturer's claims) of 3.5W. 3.5W is not 5.0W and Baofeng knows this because they stated that - see https://fcc.report/FCC-ID/2AJGM-P52UV/5110426 

Yeah the consumers buying these don't and shouldn't care about stuff this far down the paper trail, nor should they be expected to, in fact it would appear the FCC doesn't really scrutinize this enough since they're obviously letting this through the cracks until it hits the "rugged radios" kind of scale, but this is exactly why it's important for manufacturers to get it right and actually sell what they claim and what is legal.

Edited August 12, 2021 by JeepCrawler98

[WRNA236]

1 hour ago, JeepCrawler98 said:

Yeah the consumers buying these don't and shouldn't care about stuff this far down the paper trail, nor should they be expected to, in fact it would appear the FCC doesn't really scrutinize this enough since they're obviously letting this through the cracks until it hits the "rugged radios" kind of scale, but this is exactly why it's important for manufacturers to get it right and actually sell what they claim and what is legal.

You're right that the consumer shouldn't be expected to necessarily know everything.  Unless they are.  The FCC recently changed their stance regarding RF exposure and no longer is there a blanket exception that hams, GMRS, business and other two-way users have enjoyed forever.  Now everyone is expected to know the OET Bulletin 65 rules and do exposure analysis if it applies.  In the case of legitimately tested portables (in this case Midland seems to follow the rules IMO) the reason you see in FCC documents that some GMRS radios aren't actually 5W is that for uncontrolled exposure you'd exceed the SAR limits.  So unless you know for yourself or can warn people you manage radios for about exposure (make it controlled) you have to assume worst case uncontrolled.  With a unity gain antenna it works out to about 3 watts when held up to your face.  You can use more power it's just that you have to know to potentially limit the exposure intensity and duration, which is what the manufacturers assume.  You're handing radios to people who are given some instruction on how to use them or is often the case they have hand mics to move the antenna to arm's length or into a belt holster, for example.

[JeepCrawler98]

@WRNA236 - so I've heard that 50 watt stations and less are exempt, along with mobile and portable stations; but I'll need to do some digging to confirm or deny that. GMRS may be exempt if that actually exists.

[MichaelLAX]

2 hours ago, OffRoaderX said:

Unfortunately since then some clown on youtube made some videos about the radio and they are now sold-out...

Next horror movie release from Blumhouse: Radio Klown!!! 

[WRNA236]

11 minutes ago, JeepCrawler98 said:

@WRNA236 - so I've heard that 50 watt stations and less are exempt, along with mobile and portable stations; but I'll need to do some digging to confirm or deny that. GMRS may be exempt if that actually exists.

Yes, 50 watts is one limit (that for VHF).  On 70cm UHF the limit is 70 watts.  Those are absolute limits where analysis is mandatory for hams (I'd also have to read Bulletin 65 to see what it says about other services to be honest).  But under those limits you may have to do an analysis depending on the situation, such as distance your antenna is from perhaps a fence that limits access or how high up on a roof of your car or on a tower.  There are criteria for permanent vs temporary, too.  It's not a simple "50 is go/no-go" though.

[JeepCrawler98]

@WRNA236 - yup here it is: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-126A1.pdf

At first glance Pages 12 and 23 or of interest; with the limits imposed by the table on Page 23 you're probably okay but it's not a blanket exemption to automatically put everyone in the clear unfortunately (except for handhelds). Awkward.

Edited August 12, 2021 by JeepCrawler98

[WRNA236]

11 minutes ago, JeepCrawler98 said:

@WRNA236 - yup here it is: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-126A1.pdf

At first glance Pages 12 and 23 or of interest; with the limits imposed by the table on Page 23 you're probably okay but it's not a blanket exemption to automatically put everyone in the clear unfortunately (except for handhelds). Awkward.

That's the hitch, Bulletin 65 hasn't been updated since 1997 and the handheld exception does not mention Part 95 or Part 97 in detail.  I don't think it mentions Part 95 at all.  So the handheld evaluations may or may not apply.  It's written pretty vague in many respects.  There's assumptions for other services like cellular, aviation, maritime, Part 90 that the radios are "evaluated routinely," or some such statement.  Also understand that portable in context, which means more than what we think of as a handheld two-way radio but could mean a cell phone or something else, too.  So how's it's used isn't a universal situation.

[n4gix]

The ARRL has provided a free "RF Exposure Calculator" for everyone to use. It is simple and straightforward:

RF Exposure Calculator (arrl.org)

More information and resources may be found here: RF Exposure (arrl.org)