2.) your quoting a Craig Peterson test ? We both know you guys over there consider him absolute dirt and have said quite often so you should talk. LOL!
you know the old pot/kettle thing
3.) I really don't understand this part, as it's pretty convoluted all in all but I do know there is a brand new detector called the atom coming out that is suppose to do the same thing and it's got a different FCC id so it must be a different platform from I/radar. They claim it's a much more sensitive detector which it no doubt is. I will wait to see how good it is when it comes out and may buy one just to test it's radar sensitivity.
4.) Again, I really don't understand this ? " of a known kind ? " A known kind of what and by whom? That amateurish testing group ? I'll pass.
5.) speed/zones did this redo on request of whistler.
Whistler no doubt gave them a pre-production model, as was said on the report, entered to get it into this particular test on time. Obviously the kinks weren't all worked out.
It's actually a very common thing for manufacturer's to do. Ask for a retest when they finally are. Happens in car testing too. You didn't know this seriously ?
well now you know
6.) Non-biased hmm.
I guess if one claims something is non-biased then that makes it so.
Kind of like Honest Abe's used car lot.
Why do you suppose actual REAL RD testers, you know the kind that do this stuff for a living, spend thousands and thousands of dollars to go to the desert and test detectors there ?
For their health? The air ? The nice flat scenery ? Why do they bother to use actual professionally trained radar patrol police officers in these tests ? Why is the site testers all trained in radar operation by the companies that produce the radars and offer classes in it's operation?
why do you suppose they have all the rd manufacturers in attendance to check that their equipment is being used properly ?
Maybe they are all in cahoots and it's a big conspiracy and they pick the winners of test beforehand !
Ya, that's it ! Why didn't I see it sooner
7.) The testers at speed/zones no doubt tested the newest v1 version I am sure.
8.) All out performance ? That maybe true to the naive. It's a illusion. Frankly, I have seen more then a few "all out performance drivers' say they have got caught multiple times with their uber expensive rd's set ups.
They are under the illusion the detector makes the driver.
Many fast drivers that know their stuff never used detectors and are ticket free.
RD's are just a tool.
Give you a bit of a analogy here I HOPE you will understand.
IN WW2 the germans were behind in fighter development and had to keep using the Me-109 even though it was designed in the thirties and very inferior to the mustang in speed and other important criteria.
experienced Luftwaffe me-109 pilots that knew their stuff STILL beat Mustang pilots on a regular basis.
Until the german oil and gas installations were destroyed
then the Luftwaffe got jets that could run on still available kerosene
they put many a inexperienced pilot in that jet counting on it's speed and new uber features to win the day.
Many a mustang pilot shot down a me-262 in fact.
get the picture yet?
9.) Ad hominem attack
and easily dis-proven
I gave you two professional testers to prove my point, one of which did a extensive test with numerous detectors in comparison and you completely dismissed them.
10.) neither can I but that's your choice
believe me I know the feeling
but your just so darn right about everything all the time you have to teach people like me a lesson that you are !
I completely understand your Highness
11.) and I am absolutely sure even if that unit comes out and has range to the moon you will still have problems with it somehow.
Seen it before
Uber RD owners have to have some kind of excuse when their over priced trophies don't perform as they quite expect.
12.) Thank god for small miracles