Stubby Ant.
Premium Member
Joined: 10-09-2010
Posts: 14,420
From: Tacoma
I want to say stubby antenna.com we was in Washington State let me check my old e-mail.
Found it here's the guy that helped mesales@stubbyantenna.com
Found it here's the guy that helped mesales@stubbyantenna.com
Senior Member
Joined: 05-17-2010
Posts: 227
From: Greensboro NC
I get very good reception on my stubby, but it really depends on your market. The more strong close stations there are, the better you pick up even with a stubby. If you are out in the middle of no where then the stubby won't pick up much. Mine is one of the extending ones. When the signal gets low, I just raise it up and things come in clearly.
Senior Member
Joined: 11-15-2008
Posts: 1,599
From: Newburgh, NY
In order to avoid disappointment for those members considering a "stubby" antenna, be sure of the reasons that you are considering one. When it comes to the physics of RF geometrics, there's typically a higher element of function than form if you require RF performance (antennas are basically ugly and most wish we didn't need them). You can't have equal parts of both. As one in the commercial RF game some years ago with inbuilding wireless, I've seen my share of those trying to "pretty up" antennas with less than desirable results from a performance perspective. I've learned a lot from RF engineers from Motorola and Nextel while performing testing on antennae, RF amplifiers and media conversion. Quarter wave antennae, while easier to install from an intrusive & asthetic perspective, will never compare with half wave or dipoles.
Motorola engineers conducted extensive tests of various portable antenna types for each of the frequency bands. They documented their results in a paper which was published in the IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology. Similar results are also contained in TSB-88.1-C of the IEEE document. Using a quarter-wave antenna [stubby] results in a considerable performance loss compared to either a coaxial dipole or an end-fed half wave. The quarter wave loss compared to a coaxial dipole is 6.9 dB.
Bottom line is if you live in an urban area that is close to the transmission source or if you don't use your radio to any measurable degree, go for the "stubby" antenna because it will enhance the appearance of your vehicle and you won't be disappointed.
Motorola engineers conducted extensive tests of various portable antenna types for each of the frequency bands. They documented their results in a paper which was published in the IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology. Similar results are also contained in TSB-88.1-C of the IEEE document. Using a quarter-wave antenna [stubby] results in a considerable performance loss compared to either a coaxial dipole or an end-fed half wave. The quarter wave loss compared to a coaxial dipole is 6.9 dB.
Bottom line is if you live in an urban area that is close to the transmission source or if you don't use your radio to any measurable degree, go for the "stubby" antenna because it will enhance the appearance of your vehicle and you won't be disappointed.
Senior Member
Joined: 05-23-2006
Posts: 1,082
From: Chandler, AZ
I put a stubby antenna on our HHR probably five years ago and have never had any reception problems, but on the other hand, 99% of our driving is just around the Phoenix Metro area. And we only listen to 2 or 3 stations, tops!
