Who is this so called "Radar Expert"

[Offshore]

Just wondering who the guy is that was in VGs video telling him his install of the CI on his beemer was just fine (as it sat behind his bumper), same guy that did the V1 bashing video when the 9500 first came out, and I think wrote that worthless post here the other day about all the magic powder in his pocket that he sprinckles on the RDs as they leave the factory...Also would like to say I am so taken back by the performance of DJs CI that Iam planning on getting one....but again the brain dead PR guy with "The Radar Experts" needs to shut up.

[MEM-TEK]

What posts did the guy make? I want to read them.

[djrams80]

What posts did the guy make? I want to read them.

http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...arexperts.html

http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...tml#post546713

Rather than answer directly to the above other than to comment on the testing by the writer (which I’ll get to in a brief moment), this answer will more generally address the Passport 9500ix AutoLearn lock/unlock artificial intelligence.

First, on the test as described in the thread – testing is always fun and when properly controlled (ie, known test conditions, absolute test parameters and knowledge of the product operation under test), is useful for revealing both expected/planned results and sometimes, uncovers surprising unexpected results. The excepted results seem to confirm your knowledge of the test and the product and therefore, the results add confidence to your position (assumptions). Unexpected results are cause for questions – did I do the test correctly, accurately, and/or do I understand the designed operation of the product? In the case of this test, with the authored unexpected results, there are concerns/issues in both tracks above: first, the test conditions across the whole test are not valid for testing the unlock capabilities of the Passport 9500ix – several (among a few) points: using a source, using a source while mobile, in the test car, testing inside ¼ mile of travel termination (the tester’s home), then not being mobile after powering the source, etc. and so on; - second, the operation of the Passport 9500ix seems to be a bit misunderstood as shown by the assumptions and interpretations of the results versus the actual engineering design expectations and performance. As there is misunderstanding (and not error or malfunction), this is where I will begin …

The expectation of the Passport 9500ix (9500ix) AutoLearn feature to 'perform and do something' is to be expected and is complimentary to your smart choice of purchasing and use of one. The fact that the test and its results are misunderstood is not a fault of anyone (and, the interpreted results are incomplete) – here’s why:

First: know that there are literally tens of thousands of the 9500ix units in cars being used today and there are subsequently, hundreds of confirming calls, letters, email and text messages telling us of the operators’ witness to the proper locking and unlocking of the 9500ix AutoLearn feature. AutoLearn is working in thousands of real-world test beds – actual owners’ vehicles in use in real urban environments.

Second: part of the general misunderstanding of the operation of the 9500ix AutoLearn is, in large part, because it is a very technically advanced, complicated piece of extraordinary engineering. Its very nature and design are simply difficult to understand (outside of the geniuses behind its design).

Third: as a complex, but highly competitive, industry leading design, it is proprietary (patent protected) and therefore, hopefully, confidential – ie, we will never fully divulge its remarkable algorithm and operation. That’s just good competitive business modeling and a healthy business way of life.

Finally: there is more to this that I can say here and so for all the depth, visit the ESCORT forum under the thread, "Passport 9500ix AutoLearn Lock & Unlock".

In summary, you should remember the following: AutoLearn is fully functional (as you can even read here from others who have observed its Artificial Intelligence operation) and is working properly, successfully. AutoLearn is so far ahead of any other competitor design it’s not even worth considering (anymore) the alternatives (including the V1 groupies who have paid way too much for oh so boring little). AutoLearn is the future of detection protection – but you can get it today, from ESCORT. If you already have a 9500ix, then you know as you have witnessed AutoLearn in operation (and you are nodding your head and smiling right now). If you do not yet have a 9500ix, it’s yours to try virtually for free – 30 days to decide and if you aren’t fully satisfied, simply call and ESCORT will take it back and give you a full refund with no harassing questions. This isn’t arrogance – this just is. Cutting edge. Simple. Cool. Advantage – 9500ix and ESCORT owners.

Thanks,
RadarExpert(s)

[CJR238]

It was in my AutoLearn thread.

Escort reps will learn how to communicate in these forums. Give them a little break. Not all of them are stuck up and have that holeyer than thou attitude. The other guys have been pretty helpful and understanding.

Pointmain and EscortRadar are pretty cool, and i can understand what they wright.

Check out there new Escort forum, so far im the only one there, lol.

Escort Radar Forum - Powered by vBulletin

[jimbonzzz]

I know exactly who it is and what he does, but I'm not tellin'

Or, in the words of MEM-TEK: "I cannot disclose"

[Freebird]

I know exactly who it is and what he does, but I'm not tellin'

Or, in the words of MEM-TEK: "I cannot disclose"

[CJR238]

I know exactly who it is and what he does, but I'm not tellin'

Or, in the words of MEM-TEK: "I cannot disclose"

So you have no idea ether.

[FoolishOne]

Just jumping on board....this RadarExpert(s) guy/woman is an employee of Escort Inc?

[djrams80]

Just jumping on board....this RadarExpert(s) guy/woman is an employee of Escort Inc?

I think you're right. This person is at least posing as an Escort employee.

[MEM-TEK]

I would rather have a company which acknowledges that there are issues, and that these isues are being looked into and will be addressed in future updates. After all, its all just a matter of logic and firmware implementations thereof. And since the 9500 series can be updated with new firmware via USB, what is the big deal about admitting that both the TrueLock logic and underlying firmware implementation could be improved? I have already though up a set of logic solutions which would resolve all TrueLock issues.

Lets look at how the Beltronics side of Escort decided to handle the potential release of the new STi firmware which resolved the audio ramp-up issue. They chose to have several of us forum members test the new firmware in order to find any firmware bugs associated with the new audio ramp-up firmware code. The neat thing is that us beta testers found all underlying and significant bugs in just two weeks, and then we communicated these issues to Bel as well as here on this forum so that there was a list of what specific bugs were present for various STi hardware versions. The end result was that these bugs were quickly addressed and resolved by Bel's engineers within an amazingly short time span of just 3 weeks. There is nothing wrong with this approach since we encounter situations and use our RD's or try to quickly program our RD's in ways which programmers can't fully anticipate. Thus, real world testing really is the only way to go. This real world testing has to be done by consumers since company employees might be too focused on trying to make detailed observations rather than playing around with every possible setting and scenario as we real world users might do, rather than concentrating on filling out a testing chart.

Here is something else which needs to be kept in mind: Most consumer electronics shows occur during the first half of every year. That is when any RD manufacturer is rather busy getting any new products ready for unveiling at product shows, and when they are most busy with new products rather than having time for tweaking current products. So, the lazy days of summer tend to be really good times for us testers to help the manufacturers tweak existing products since (hopefully) they will have some time to analyze our test results and fix any bugs which are found.

The point is that, if the RD manufacturers do decide to allow us to continue to beta test new firmware, we need to simply communicate the nature of the bugs rather than ranting about how bad the bug is. Bel took the amazing step of allowing several of us forum members to beta test their all but completely rewritten STi firmware code, and the end result was spectacular once the very few bugs were quickly found and fixed. I really hope that this will continue as a new trend by the RD manufacturers.