REDLINE, V1, X50, STi Testing VIDEO.

[Stealth Stalker]

I can't figure out why he keeps making new names when there's nothing wrong with his original one. But if he keeps it up, we can ban that one too.

[TSi+WRX]

The Redline is still too new and hasn't been tested by enough people in the real world, with the bottom line being SAVES vs. TICKETS. More test videos would be sweet also.
(had to delete picture of combination lock because of post count)

I agree - the RedLine is still too new, there simply hasn't been enough sampling/population to truly come to any conclusion.

However, these initial peeks do present as ammo for the Zombies, and do, also, disappoint (tremendously) us Escort users who had sincerely hoped for more, from this new and very, very hyped offering.

Regardless of how things turn out....

Monte1, I agree completely with you - that it's the real-world "saves" that's going to count, to each and every end-user.

But there's a problem in that.

The problem is that the real-world is full of variables, and that each encounter is unique.

This also means that, under real-world conditions, *any* detector can have a really good day - or a really bad one.

Yes, this can happen during testing, too - but the only way to truly see what the capabilities and limitations are of each detector is to expose them to these artificial testing conditions, however imperfect they may be (be it small sample number [production variability], debated setups/settings, etc.).

It's the only way to quantitate.

There's no way to guaranty that a "save" is truly a save - there's no way to account for the enforcer having perhaps set a higher personal enforcement limit than even the speed at which you were traveling. There's no way to say that he or she doesn't just, for whatever reason, like your car, even.

Only true quantitative testing can control the engagement scenario enough so as to allow us to visualize any weaknesses.

[ReVeaL]

No problem whatsoever Stealth Stalker
&
God Bless your for being some what understanding and immpecable.
I just tried to log on to this one and it said ban.
Then I wanted to make sure I sent you a important message, or at least
heard me out in which you have.
Now I know you can't make multiple names on this forum it will
never happen again.

God Bless you & your Profession
I have high respect for that for personal reasons.

I honestly think you have done a excellent job here and thank you.
I mean that sincerely.

No matter I will trust Radar Roy words since 2004 & SpeedTrapHunter.
The work they have done is the reason why I respect them now.

Thank you I appreciate the current words spoken on this forum board concerning
further testing.

ReVeaL

[Monte1]

Yes, this can happen during testing, too - but the only way to truly see what the capabilities and limitations are of each detector is to expose them to these artificial testing conditions, however imperfect they may be (be it small sample number [production variability], debated setups/settings, etc.).

Only true quantitative testing can control the engagement scenario enough so as to allow us to visualize any weaknesses.

Maybe yes...and maybe no regarding the quantitative testing and engagement scenarios.

As strong as the V1 always comes out on top for most of these tests, all I can tell you is that within the last month I had 3 real life scenarios with my V1 where I just flat out got LUCKY. In one scenario I was out of state in a string of cars that were ALL going over 80 mph in a 70 zone around a corner and an Alabama LEO was about 60 yds. deep in an opening behind trees that blocked the curve and the V! went off at the last second around the curve. If I was the only car, it would have been OVER. What detector wins that battle? Was it Q/T, I/O or the trees blocking it? I don't know.

The other cases were similar with the string of cars and no chase cars to pull everyone over. I'm actually starting to wonder about the V1 on KA at times.

Yesterday I had a K band incident where the V1 was alerting soooo far in advance I was thinking that it had to be a false, but luckily didn't ignore it as such.
Lo and behold if it wasn't a local LEO sitting right in the middle of the road hitting cars with C/O coming in the opposite direction at a time of day and place where there was NEVER one before. Who wins that battle in real life? I'd guess a TIE,

[TSi+WRX]

^ And that's exactly what I mean.

"Testing" cannot truly be done in the "real-world" sense.
'
"Saves" or "losses" in the real-world are both true multifactorial considerations - simple luck does factor into the equation and is, oftentimes, the sole determinant of outcome.

Quantitative (as quantitative as we can get ) testing allows us to control the situation, to truly dissect the strong and weak points of each detector. This is vital to tell us what the detector's true capabilities are, and where potentially hidden shortcomings (i.e. which are only rarely seen in the real-world, or may be effectively "buried" due to other real-world engagement constraints and/or variables) may exist.

But it does not necessarily tell us how well the detector may perform in the real-world.

It's important for everyone to understand this separation.

[CactusMan]

Thanks for the videos and all the hard work you guys did.