How about a real-world test?

**bigalinwv** · 11-22-2007, 08:07 AM

Instead of "foam" and closed courses, how about a real-world GOL test? Set up the radar guns on real roads with real traffic, and make two or three runs for each detector. Yes, I know there will be infinitely more variables, but the last time I checked, I drive in the real world, not in a closed course.

Every detector test I have ever seen is not in any way representative of real-world driving.

**happya$$** · 11-22-2007, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by bigalinwv

Instead of "foam" and closed courses, how about a real-world GOL test? Set up the radar guns on real roads with real traffic, and make two or three runs for each detector. Yes, I know there will be infinitely more variables, but the last time I checked, I drive in the real world, not in a closed course.

Every detector test I have ever seen is not in any way representative of real-world driving.

THe detectors that do best in our variable control tests will do best in the real world. The key is to control the variables and our tests do just that. The best real real world test that can be done is the ones that you encounter in the real world. For example if we do a test like you want and on one run we have an RMR that gets lucky because the radar bounced off another vehicle object and beat the top dogs does this represent RMR's performance? Remember radar bounces off everything

**bigalinwv** · 11-22-2007, 08:59 AM

I think you're missing my point. I don't drive on a closed course with no variables. I understand what you're saying, but it almost reminds me of the EPA mileage listed for vehicles, who the he** ever gets what is on the sticker? There again, in a closed environment, not real world.

**thestaton** · 11-22-2007, 09:02 AM

I'm good with how we do it now, but is there really a need to ever test detectors for the next couple of years? Every test ends up exactly the same, with the V1 dominating, then the Belscorts fighting for anything else that matters.

Real world is just to dangerous for me.

**JeepinJeff** · 11-22-2007, 09:17 AM

I think a real world test would be nice but it would need to be in addition to, not in place of, the other testing.

**bigalinwv** · 11-22-2007, 09:23 AM

I agree with that, it would be interesting to see how the two tests would "pair" up.

**happya$$** · 11-22-2007, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by thestaton

I'm good with how we do it now, but is there really a need to ever test detectors for the next couple of years? Every test ends up exactly the same, with the V1 dominating, then the Belscorts fighting for anything else that matters.

Real world is just to dangerous for me.

I agree 100%. No need to do another RD test for a long time not unless something new comes out with more SENSITIVITY not more features

**Michael B** · 11-22-2007, 10:04 AM

I respectfully disagree with thestaton and happyass on this one.

While I agree that controlled tests are needed to determine the most sensitive unit and the hen picking order that follows, it is not the same as a real world test.

If all you looked at were test results, then all the units get 8 to 9 miles of range based upon the SML test and you all know this to not be true in the real world with buildings, cars, terrain, etc...etc...Staton, you were there.

Some people drive in autoscan mode. Does that mean they get the same level of real world performance as in Highway mode?

Many units require 600 or 800ms to 1 full second of radar signal in order to alert while others may only require half of that. In a controlled test at 20-30 MPH there is little difference in the distance as a result of the extra 1/2 second however when was the last time you wrere driving at 20-30 MPH and were worried about receiving a speeding ticket?

Driving at 70MPH and now that half a second difference can add up.

Yes it makes sense to do a real world test and yes the results may be inconclusive all on its own but how is anyone going to know if the test is not done.

I seem to recall back when chamber data was presented, everyone said it was not the same as the real world and they are correct.

The GOL did a straightaway eccosorb sensitivity test and the order of the results mimicked the order of finish in the chamber tests indicating that the chamber test and a controlled outdoor straightaway test can provide similar results however one still has to say that this is not the real world.

**ahmadr** · 11-22-2007, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Michael B

Many units require 600 or 800ms to 1 full second of radar signal in order to alert while others may only require half of that. In a controlled test at 20-30 MPH there is little difference in the distance as a result of the extra 1/2 second however when was the last time you wrere driving at 20-30 MPH and were worried about receiving a speeding ticket?

Driving at 70MPH and now that half a second difference can add up.

Good point. To keep the test controlled, maybe GOL can rig up some sort of automatic beep to shutter press converter, to exactly measure the distance upon alert at higher speeds....

**bigalinwv** · 11-22-2007, 08:03 PM

In order to make it more repeatable and have some credibility, three runs or more with each should cancel out any kind of anomaly. (like the RMR comment above)