Oh believe me It's not hard considering the detector comes from escort :wink: A company that Produces the STi with huge manufacturer variancesQuote:
Originally Posted by CJR238
Printable View
Oh believe me It's not hard considering the detector comes from escort :wink: A company that Produces the STi with huge manufacturer variancesQuote:
Originally Posted by CJR238
The only thing V1 seemed to lack on was Foward Facing 35.5... Nice Job guys!!!!!!!!!! Keep up the great work!
Man did the 9500i shock me.. :shock: :roll:
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the STi test with bands off. It appears that the KA range got worse with X off. I'm glad the V1 reacted better when bands and POP were turned off.
So what does the GOL think about the results of the STi with different settings? I'm assuming the numbers tell it like it is.
Oh and its safe to say that POP off increases range.
Wow, great stuff!
We now have a GOL section and we just got new test results? Could we ask for more? haha
I'm loving how the V1 dominated with authoritative style as usual :). I was also proud of the STI on 33.8 (basically right there with the V1 ). Check out the 3.863 on the k band detection (despite how some bad mouth the newer V1 detectors.)
The around the curve test with the stalker was also impressive. I can personally say that compared to the Bell and escort detectors I have used the V1 really does seem to have the best off axis (as shown in this one specific instance).
Great job guys!!!!
good job GOL
Good question. those tests where a lot of fun but there didn't see to be any rhyme or reason. The STi if I remember did best with Pop On & SWS On... That goes against all logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by polakatl
It was a fun and hopefully we can do some more mythbusters in the future.
But this goes out to the RX-65 users who have cried for over a year now "test it in USA vs. Intl".... Yeah. About that USA mode :)
were any tests conducted on the truelock feature alone? it seems i saw it mentioned somewhere. and how did the 9500's ramp up perform?
yeah if happya$$ would get off his lazya$$ we would have about 5 videos for you. but he's only had a month and some change so "we have to wait".Quote:
Originally Posted by BullyDawg19
but bottom line it doesn't work and it's dangerous.
Juggle two kids, a wife, full time school, full time work, and then come and talk to me. Lets see videos, family life, work or school? What is more important? Lets beat a subject to death on the 9500i. There is only so many ways we can show it just like the 33.8 issue. I think people get the point by now. If they do not they will neverQuote:
Originally Posted by thestaton
I think you are misunderstanding what we are trying to say here.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmadr
When we mention ratios, we're not talking about distances vs sensitivity in dBm, none of our results are in dBm. We're talking about one detector's distance vs another detector's distance in the results..
So for example, let's say that Detector A gets 500 feet of range in the eccosorb test, and Detector B gets 1000 feet (500 feet better, but also double the distance). If the same two detectors are tested on a long course, and if Detector A gets 5 miles range, then one would expect detector B to get 10 miles of range (not 5 miles + 500 feet).
To relate to sensitivity in dBm: in this example, of course Detector B is obviously 6dB more sensitive than Detector A, and should get double the range of Detector A (in bore-sight test conditions of course), and the ratio between the distances of the two detectors always stays the same.
In this respect, the ratio between the detectors is what matters.