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

[TSi+WRX]

I think manufactures addressed POP, LIDAR, or SWS immediately because it was another easy selling point to write on the box. The words Quick Trigger, make your average user to say WTH? I don't feel like it but I offer an opinion on individual why POP, Laser and SWS were "addressed" so quickly.

^ Agreed.

But my reasoning still stands - Escort cannot use either of their two excuses, "rarity" is not a valid excuse, we've had rear-LIDAR protection since the ZR3, and it's just as "rare." The "legalities/morals/ethics" of using Q/T does not stand as an excuse, either - we've got POP protection, and "legally/morally/ethically," the two are the same.

Yes, I know why they did what they did, in providing us with (however competent, that's another story) the protection that they did.

Yes, I can also understand why they'd make up the excuses, now.

But I don't agree, at all, with the validity of such excuses, given the history of the protective measures we've been offered, as well as, even moreso, the simple lack of logic that drives the use of such excuses, and the thinking that we'd be dumb enough or naive enough to buy such excuses.


----

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.

Run a quick search on the terminology "quick trigger" here - you'll see how far the posts date back. (BTW, I believe that there might be a back-date limit on the Forum, the last time I searched for these terms, to verify chronology, I was taken to a post back in 2005 - now, I can only see 2006).

Actual community discussion of this dates back much farther than that, with specific relation to Escort - or not - and anyone who has been in this community will remember well.

I am truly not sure why Escort sees this as a "new" threat, but I agree with you, I think that they see it as a novel threat, too.

If that's the case, then then just haven't been paying enough attention to their customer base or the hobby/community, as this has long, long, been a known issue.


-----

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.

^ In so far as it is almost "mission statement" of Escort, to provide detectors with a high "sensitivity to selectivity" ratio - to cut "falses" - I agree, removing filters may be contrary to their current end-goal. However, in having given us the RedLine, which even they will admit that it trades some filtering for the extreme sensitivity that it brings, paints a new picture.

Hopefully, they'll realize, as many of us in the community have pointed out, that a solution already exists with the M3 platform, in the guise of what settings/software/firmware was utilized with the sadly now-defunct STi-R.

As for the wait? Not necessarily.

We know now, almost beyond the shadow of doubt, that the STi-R's settings can be manipulated so that it totally murders Q/T - at least to be as competitive as the V1.

Similarly, we know from Cbr and ELVATO's tests - as well as relating back to the immediate response I gave CJR above, regarding the origin/chronology of the Escort Q/T complaint, in so much that this is something that he and others have reminded me about - the older, previous-generation S7 antenna Escorts actually performed better on Q/T than their more modern counterparts (certainly, filtering does come into play, here, for the older models also were less selective).

To me, the solution already exists - it's just a matter of implementation.