Redline vs. V1 vs. DSR 2X vs. Reaction Time

[Stealth Stalker]

QT has been discussed as a concern here on this forum since at least 2005. This isn't something that just suddenly came up out of nowhere. At least two of Escort's current detectors have been developed and released with full knowledge of the QT threat, yet they fail to address it.

[dslrip32]

Dude, your so full of whats coming out of the south end of a north bound male cow it's scary.

Are Utah and Colorado two out of the three states that use QT? What state does the trooper on Youtube come from? Texas? Are those the three out of the 50?
Now come to think of it djrams has had some QT encounters too and I don't think he lives in Utah, Colorado or Texas either. I think some other guys on here have stated that they've had some problems as well. Hummmmm I think dslrip32 has some issues with QT. He lives in Utah, Colorado, or Texas as well???

Mr. Amity Mayor, keep telling people its safe to swim in shark infested waters if you like to, but I think those that know a little bit of something, know better and theres even been a few of us thats been bit on the @$$ already. No Belscort for me, I'll swim elsewhere.

Exzacley, and yes DJ and dslrip live in the main states QT is a serious problem (CA & TX). If Colorado and Utah need to be add then confirm/sow proof and add them. Now there are 4 out of 50.

I don't care if its 4 out of 50 or 50 out of 50, but one percentage will get more of a response than the other. (i guarantee this is what escort is doing to way there response to this issue, but in there own time)

This will also help any poor member that buys a QT deficient RD and joins we can point out there problem according to state/citi and they can adjust accordingly. (just did this on Escorts forum for a member in TX)

You can have the best equipment in the world but if you don't know your enemy or where they are you will never Winn...

No need to worry about sharks when swimming in non shark infested waters, and this is coming from someone who knows a little bit about something.

If I were you I would also include Oklahoma, as far as DSR 2X Q/t, cause it is bad there. I am off to trial on this last Q/T ticket, I hope LEO doesn't show, and If he does, I am going to put him on the spot for sure. The other Q/T ticket was today in Oklahoma, and This LEO had video, so he said, so I just went ahead and said whatever, and asked for Defensive driving. I will find out tomorrow on this other one.

[CJR238]

QT has been discussed as a concern here on this forum since at least 2005. This isn't something that just suddenly came up out of nowhere. At least two of Escort's current detectors have been developed and released with full knowledge of the QT threat, yet they fail to address it.

What models? QT was only recognized by Escort and there comments to us recently. I know we knew about it for a while but there was little to no real information or confirmation till this year. At the very least we cant assume they new just because us few enthusiast thought there was an issue.

I just looked at the Stalker sight and found no reference to QT but i did see this comment "This amazing performance means you can monitor vehicles at greater distances, which results in a superior tracking history and better target identification"

I could be wrong, but i can only assume Escort sees this as a new threat from my conversations with them.

[dslrip32]

QT has been discussed as a concern here on this forum since at least 2005. This isn't something that just suddenly came up out of nowhere. At least two of Escort's current detectors have been developed and released with full knowledge of the QT threat, yet they fail to address it.

So very true here in this statement. That is why I chose V1. My main concern is Q/T, as I have 2 cites this year due to it, while running Escort products and they did not alert. It is about to be 5 years in the knowing of Q/T use to Escort, doesn't Escort think it's about time to at the very least add this option into its features, geez... I mean leave it off by default, but at least have it there so the end user that purchases your products can make their own choice.

[Offshore]

I had some spare time today so took off down the Hwy where you can always find a Leo speed trap almost any time, it did not take long. Leo shooting Ka (34.6) band just on the other side of an over pass, I was running the new Redline along side the V1..first contact Redline won hands down, it was IO and the Redline had no trouble picking it up. Decided to turn around and park so that I could monitor his shots to see if the Redline would miss one, the Leo's shots were quick but not quick enough to make the Redline miss, both the Redline and V1 were flawless at picking up these IO shots no QTs were noted. Point being the Redline can pull in some long range alerts that the V1 will never see it has been outstanding so far!

[dslrip32]

QT has been discussed as a concern here on this forum since at least 2005. This isn't something that just suddenly came up out of nowhere. At least two of Escort's current detectors have been developed and released with full knowledge of the QT threat, yet they fail to address it.

What models? QT was only recognized by Escort and there comments to us recently. I know we knew about it for a while but there was little to no real information or confirmation till this year. At the very least we cant assume they new just because us few enthusiast thought there was an issue.

I just looked at the Stalker sight and found no reference to QT but i did see this comment "This amazing performance means you can monitor vehicles at greater distances, which results in a superior tracking history and better target identification"

I could be wrong, but i can only assume Escort sees this as a new threat from my conversations with them.

What?[replacer_img] dude.. All a person has to do is watch a few videos of this Stalker DSR 2X, and see that it is very VERY easy to abuse it's ability. Of course Stalker is not going to say to use it like the Q/T method, lol. It is the same scenario as POP. They have it on those models of radar's and say only use it as probable cause, then enable regular use. Also on another note, this last Q/T ticket I got from Okie LEO, I went back and asked to look at the radar, and he had a reading on the rear antenna of 92, but it did not lock in his speed. I did some checking around and watching DSR videos, and it always show under normal use, that it locks in LEO speed also. So this use of it must be so quick and inaccurate, that it does not have time, some times to clock his speed also. Again, this is abusing the DSR by the LEO. But the LEO may think he is doing nothing wrong using it this way, who knows.... I wish there was a real LEO here that uses DSR 2X that would chime in on the issue.. But of course, all we need to do is watch a few of LEOENFORCEMENTS videos, and we can get the idea,

[MMeteor]

QT has been discussed as a concern here on this forum since at least 2005. This isn't something that just suddenly came up out of nowhere. At least two of Escort's current detectors have been developed and released with full knowledge of the QT threat, yet they fail to address it.

What models? QT was only recognized by Escort and there comments to us recently. I know we knew about it for a while but there was little to no real information or confirmation till this year. At the very least we cant assume they new just because us few enthusiast thought there was an issue.

I just looked at the Stalker sight and found no reference to QT but i did see this comment "This amazing performance means you can monitor vehicles at greater distances, which results in a superior tracking history and better target identification"

I could be wrong, but i can only assume Escort sees this as a new threat from my conversations with them.

Uhh, I don't believe so.
Isn't this is actually Belscorts "superior filtering" at work? It is my belief that Belscort would feel like it is counter productive to remove what is in place on purpose to filter alerts.
It is my opinion, but those folks waiting for Belsort to make adjustments for QT are in for a VERY LONG wait. Increase thier detectors "chattiness" to achieve quick response times? This isn't a flaw folks, it's built in on purpose so don't expect a fix in the era of radar enforcement.

Come on where do you see in any of my posts where i say QT isn't used and it doesn't exist or its not a concern? Now your just being antagonistic.

Its only used in two maybe three states max right??? And..... all but maybe a very few crooked LEO's know that establishing a tracking history is part of thier radar training sooooooo..... even in those two states, 99.99999997% of those LEO's use constant on or long I/O shots leaving .00000003% of the LEO population using QT.

Have I summed up pretty well where your coming from regarding QT, or have I forgotten somthing/left something out???

Have you ever considered politics????

[thestaton]

Repost. I think this is the fifth or sixth time these videos have been brought up. We have already discussed why the V1 missed a couple of I/O shots. First, the V1 used in te video is a 1.7 I believe. Also, the V1 is so close the radar source that the V1 is "overwhelmed or overloaded". I forgot the exact word happya$$ used.

That's where I stopped paying attention to this thread. Seeing a V1 lay on top of the antenna is pretty comical.

[The Chariot]

I'm starting to believe a couple users are examples of an unstoppable force hitting an immovable object.

[CJR238]

I just looked at the Stalker sight and found no reference to QT but i did see this comment "This amazing performance means you can monitor vehicles at greater distances, which results in a superior tracking history and better target identification"

I could be wrong, but i can only assume Escort sees this as a new threat from my conversations with them.

What?[replacer_img] dude.. All a person has to do is watch a few videos of this Stalker DSR 2X, and see that it is very VERY easy to abuse it's ability. Of course Stalker is not going to say to use it like the Q/T method, lol. It is the same scenario as POP. They have it on those models of radar's and say only use it as probable cause, then enable regular use.

Exactly, and that's the problem. Its easy to do with most radar guns but a manufacturer is only going to defend against what is advertised/claimed, they cant guess how someone is going to use a product.

QT has been discussed as a concern here on this forum since at least 2005. This isn't something that just suddenly came up out of nowhere. At least two of Escort's current detectors have been developed and released with full knowledge of the QT threat, yet they fail to address it.

What models? QT was only recognized by Escort and there comments to us recently. I know we knew about it for a while but there was little to no real information or confirmation till this year. At the very least we cant assume they new just because us few enthusiast thought there was an issue.

I just looked at the Stalker sight and found no reference to QT but i did see this comment "This amazing performance means you can monitor vehicles at greater distances, which results in a superior tracking history and better target identification"

I could be wrong, but i can only assume Escort sees this as a new threat from my conversations with them.

Uhh, I don't believe so.
Isn't this is actually Belscorts "superior filtering" at work? It is my belief that Belscort would feel like it is counter productive to remove what is in place on purpose to filter alerts.
It is my opinion, but those folks waiting for Belsort to make adjustments for QT are in for a VERY LONG wait. Increase thier detectors "chattiness" to achieve quick response times? This isn't a flaw folks, it's built in on purpose so don't expect a fix in the era of radar enforcement.

Escorts "superior filtering" as i see it is separate from this issue. The real filtering is with GPS and the different modes. i don't think its the dealy, but you could certainly be right.
I also agree the wait for a fix will be VERY LONG, but not because they don't want to do it. Its still a new unofficially documented threat that im sure requires allot of attention if they want to fix it. They are in a tuff position weather they offer a fix or come out with a unit that does address the issue. IMO the fix is not just software, its more on the antenna receiver end.

Come on where do you see in any of my posts where i say QT isn't used and it doesn't exist or its not a concern? Now your just being antagonistic.

Its only used in two maybe three states max right??? And..... all but maybe a very few crooked LEO's know that establishing a tracking history is part of thier radar training sooooooo..... even in those two states, 99.99999997% of those LEO's use constant on or long I/O shots leaving .00000003% of the LEO population using QT.

Have I summed up pretty well where your coming from regarding QT, or have I forgotten something/left something out???

Have you ever considered politics????

Basically yes, and the big issue like everyone's saying is QT will/can spread quickly and may be used more than we know, or don't know. However if us at RD.net put some effort like we have been, but do it in a more useful/productive way. We will not only help new members better we can also really show how big of an issue QT is according to area. Like the list of radar used i according to area, a QT list of areas its used heavily will benefit us all.

Hay if we prove its used in 10 states heavily, Escort may make it a switch able feature if it is the "superior filtering" or maybe GPS controlled for certain areas of our choice.

lol, I don't think I could hack politics, im a bit too honest. But i have had people here make that sugestion to me before.