Manipulation #14LeFebure 1800 SeriesGroup2 ... 3 wheel ... key change ... spring loaded fence
Recall manipulation #12
- a La Gard 3330 gave me my very first experience with the shadowing effect.
In a roundabout way I eventually reached an opening. However, it seemed to involve far too much trial & error and guess work.
It was only through the process of elimination that I was able to arrive at the combination. Since that experience, I've really
been wanting to revisit this. Even though I haven't had a lot of time to spin... the wheels in my brain are always turning...... a flip-sided view of wheel 3.
So the other day I was watching a video - Mark Bates was demonstrating an automated dialer called the 'Soft Drill'.
Now I don't know much about automatic dialing machines, other than they methodically dial the shitload of possible
configurations at an incredible pace until the correct one is hit. May take 3 hrs, may take 3 days. Or it may fail entirely.
The Soft Drill however, is a radical departure from the conventional automated dialer. Rather than simply running through
the thousands of possibilities, the soft drill actually takes contact readings via sound, and intelligently manipulates the lock.
Mark makes very clear that he takes no credit for the Soft Drill. However, his vast experience & knowledge of manipulation
was integrated into the software. So naturally, much of the movements and methods of this machine mimics that of his.
The Soft Drill will run each wheel independently, starting with the most likely source-- wheel 3. Then w2, then w1.
But rather than simply parking wheels 1 &
2 in the middle of the forbidden zone, it takes the time to find the optimal
positions to park each of these wheels prior to running wheel 3. Likewise, it then finds the absolute lowest point to park
w1 prior to graphing w2. The Soft Drill takes contact readings on every increment. Opening time is roughly 20 minutes +/-
A fair amount of its' total time is spent determining the best positions to park wheels prior to graphing the one in question.
As a result, fence contact is optimized every step of the way... this creates greater fluctuation/definition for every graph. CONTACT AREAApproximately 8 incs wideLCP
2 . . . . . RCP
10ROTATIONAL CONVERSIONpick-up differences for wheels
3, 2, 1 were
1 .... 1 5/8 .... 2 5/8 .... respectively
So my thought was to take the same approach as the Soft Drill... but obviously on a smaller and MUCH less accurate scale.
The plan is simple: An initial sweep through the wheel pack with the main focus of simply finding the lowest point for each
wheel. Regardless of whether these are actual gates or just low points matters not. If it happens to be a gate, that's perfect.
If it is NOT
a true gate, it STILL
drops the fence slightly deeper into the wheelpack, allowing a gate to be revealed elsewhere. Locks of this nature tend to paint a graph consisting of extreme highs and lows. If exploited correctly, the shadowing
effect actually becomes the locks' liability, and turns out to be quite a time saver for us. Due to these extremes,
only a very broad profile view of a wheel is required in order to reveal a great deal of information. Take for example my first graph. A total of only 11 readings gives a sufficient view of the entire radius. Looking at this, I can
immediately discount 80-90% of the wheel and avert wasting any time at all on it! After only 10-12 readings, I've narrowed down
a fairly small area that actually needs to be explored. What would normally take 60+ readings, I just accomplished in roughly 20!!
By taking readings every 10 increments, I'm quickly guided to the most promising area around 60.
We can safely assume the lowest point will be somewhere between 55 and 65. After amplifying
this area by taking a reading at every increment, 58 is chosen- which in this case actually looks
to be a fairly promising gate signature. Generally, I wouldn't expect this to occur all too often.
Similar to high/low testing, we utilize both the highest (40) and lowest (58) points in the graph.
By parking all wheels at the highest point, then dragging a wheel at a time to the lowest point...
we're able to tag the good reading of 58 to a particular wheel. Here, we find it belongs to wheel 3AWR @ 40 . . . 10 7/8
R40 R40 R58
. . . . . 10 1/8
R40 R58 R40 . . . . . 10 7/8
R58 R40 R40 . . . . . 10 7/8
*Rotational direction is crucial here. The initial graph was taken using a right rotation.
Hence, EVERY number in the testing configurations are also approached from the right. - - R58
Having found the lowest point for w3, I now park it there while running wheels 1 &
Again, only 10 readings is sufficient for a view that prompts me to explore the area around 30.
As I worked my way towards 30 (starting from 22
) I eventually settle on 27 as the lowest point.
And just as before -by utilizing both the highest and lowest points on the graph,
I can determine which wheel this lowpoint of 27 belongs to. 1 & 2 @ L90 / w3 @ R58 . . . 9 7/8
R58 . . . . . 9 5/8
L27 L90 R58 . . . . .10 3/8 - L27 - R58
Wheel 1 is now graphed while parking wheels 2 &
3 on their previously found low points.
Here you'll notice the area to explore has widened slightly. The low point we're looking
for could be anywhere between 90 and 20. Even so, this is still
only 30% of the wheel.
I started at 18, taking readings every 2 increments as I worked my way towards 90.
Enough oscillation drops the fence at 6. At 4... the fence dropped with no coaxing.OPEN: R4 - L27 - R58. . . . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . .
By no means is this a tried and true method at this point. Certainly, it's a huge step up from my first encounter
with shadowing.... and I do believe I'm on the right track with this. Several more manipulations run through
this lock as well as my La Gard, should help to not only confirm, but further refine this method.
Also, I don't anticipate catching true gates for each wheel the first time through (as it was with this manipulation
More often than not, it will probably require revisiting and readjusting each wheel slightly. That was the whole
idea behind briefly running through and finding the lowest point for each wheel: to drop the fence deeper
and optimize its' contact with the wheel pack. That way the gates should be much more apparent
through my readings as I revisit and rework the small promising area for each wheel.
Given the fact that we can so quickly discount huge portions of any one wheel and narrow down the
hunting grounds to a fairly small area -- it seems plausible that locks of this type may very well be
compromised faster than say, a Group2 S&G. My hope is to eventually free-spin these open in a
matter of minutes. But again, at this stage, it's still really just a speculation on my part.