Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rocky2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CJR238
Quote:
Originally Posted by
djrams80
Before everyone gets too excited, remember my locals Q/T'd my 9500ci twice inside of 30 seconds at about 35mph.
X2, this is a baseline to start from. There is obvousley a difrence, but by how much?
Parked/not moving, when QT the gun the V1 alerted almost every time (short, long whatever) and the ci never did. But when moving the results were totally different, and obviously from the videos.
Remember those first Redline Q/T videos Elevato posted it seemed like the Redline did better farther away from the source at picking up Q/T than it did close up. I always wondered why,my only theory was the farther away the more stuff the radar bounces off of and the better chance it catches one of those reflections and gives a alert.
Yes, i remember. That and adding the amount of times Escort yelled at me for testing TrueLock with a K band gun in the car going off full blast led me to thinking out side the box.
When i get my 9500ix back i hope to test it as well. I just need to figure out a way to get my hands on a DSR X2. If no one can help me i may need to steel a cop car with one in it. :( Just call me McLovin. ;)
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nine_c1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CJR238
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nine_c1
If your going to test detectors for their response times then you have to do it right or the results are totally BOGUS.
Rule #1.............WAIT 10 or more seconds between shots! Some detectors are KNOWN to park on a frequency for at least 10 seconds after detecting a signal.
Rule #2.............Time the shots! In the first video we can tell your pulls are at or under .5 seconds. In the 2nd and 3rd video we have no idea how long the operator was transmitting. Could have been a second or more.
One other thing........the Kustom Eagle your shooting could be 10 or more years old and be a little on the worn side. It's a safe bet that a new Eagle or Stalker unit would be a bit faster at aquiring a target speed.:D
The principle of your test was great, but the controls were not there.:(
This wasn't a test for detectors and their response times, it was a test to see if distance and moving changed QT results, and show a LEO's point of view.
Rule #1, the V1 parks not the Escort. Besides we tested at very long pauses. 40 videos would get boring.
Rule #2 No need to time it because if the LEO cant get a speed reading it doesn't count. The whole timing thing is unnecessary (BOGUS), and this is why a DSR X2 needs to be tested with both points of view. If a LEO QT's at .2 seconds and doesint get a reading whats the point.
We did a ton of runs some with extreme amounts of time before QT pulls and some like the last video. The point was to show a LEO's point of view and showing the CI alerting to QT pulls while moving at a distance. There are tons of driver point of view videos showing what we beleve to be QT but without seing the LEO doing it its possible he may not have gotten the speed.
Ether way this is a baseline to start from, and shows proof there is a difference when moving or at a farther distances. At least its closer to real world than any other tests we have seen.
I didn't mean to upset you CJ ..........but I figured my comments would.:p
Like I said though, your using a 10+ year old radar that is not the quickest out there anymore, so don't assume that if you can't get a reading under .3 seconds with that unit that a LEO can't with his brand new DSR!
Also, this is not proof that farther distance makes a difference as you had a different operator running the radar and we can't see how long his trigger pulls lasted.:rolleyes: You have to time the pulls to have a valid comparison.
I timed the alerts between between shots during your moving tests and they were within 10 seconds of each other..........too close!
Not upset, nor do your comments disprove the obvious facts.
Ill explain again. We did over 20 passes, some pauses were over 15 minuets some were 10 seconds and some were very close. Even I used the radar gun and waited long pauses. Watch the 2nd video again the last shot was over 10 seconds after the previous trigger pull, but again we did it over 20+ times with varying pauses up to 10-15min.
I didn't want to leave out the 3rd video but its was one of 2 that was able to down load to YouTube, though its not a great example.
Even if you just take when we tested the V1/ci and QT with the supposed 10 year old unit and the ci didn't alert once. Then do it at a distance while moving and it then started alerting, that's proof enough for me and most other people. In every bench test the Escorts fail miserably, but in this case it did not, that is reason enough to believe there is more to this distance moving fact. rocky2 post above referencing Elevato's videos should clue us in as well.
However as i stated originally we need to test this with a DSR X2 to definitively have an answer of how much better it is at distances moving.
I accept your offer to get a DSR X2 and show us it will disprove what my results show. (QT with the M3 is better at distances moving than within 50ft not moving)
Thank you for taking that burden. :D
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CJR238
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nine_c1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CJR238
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nine_c1
If your going to test detectors for their response times then you have to do it right or the results are totally BOGUS.
Rule #1.............WAIT 10 or more seconds between shots! Some detectors are KNOWN to park on a frequency for at least 10 seconds after detecting a signal.
Rule #2.............Time the shots! In the first video we can tell your pulls are at or under .5 seconds. In the 2nd and 3rd video we have no idea how long the operator was transmitting. Could have been a second or more.
One other thing........the Kustom Eagle your shooting could be 10 or more years old and be a little on the worn side. It's a safe bet that a new Eagle or Stalker unit would be a bit faster at aquiring a target speed.:D
The principle of your test was great, but the controls were not there.:(
This wasn't a test for detectors and their response times, it was a test to see if distance and moving changed QT results, and show a LEO's point of view.
Rule #1, the V1 parks not the Escort. Besides we tested at very long pauses. 40 videos would get boring.
Rule #2 No need to time it because if the LEO cant get a speed reading it doesn't count. The whole timing thing is unnecessary (BOGUS), and this is why a DSR X2 needs to be tested with both points of view. If a LEO QT's at .2 seconds and doesint get a reading whats the point.
We did a ton of runs some with extreme amounts of time before QT pulls and some like the last video. The point was to show a LEO's point of view and showing the CI alerting to QT pulls while moving at a distance. There are tons of driver point of view videos showing what we beleve to be QT but without seing the LEO doing it its possible he may not have gotten the speed.
Ether way this is a baseline to start from, and shows proof there is a difference when moving or at a farther distances. At least its closer to real world than any other tests we have seen.
I didn't mean to upset you CJ ..........but I figured my comments would.:p
Like I said though, your using a 10+ year old radar that is not the quickest out there anymore, so don't assume that if you can't get a reading under .3 seconds with that unit that a LEO can't with his brand new DSR!
Also, this is not proof that farther distance makes a difference as you had a different operator running the radar and we can't see how long his trigger pulls lasted.:rolleyes: You have to time the pulls to have a valid comparison.
I timed the alerts between between shots during your moving tests and they were within 10 seconds of each other..........too close!
Not upset, nor do your comments disprove the obvious facts.
Ill explain again. We did over 20 passes, some pauses were over 15 minuets some were 10 seconds and some were very close. Even I used the radar gun and waited long pauses. Watch the 2nd video again the last shot was over 10 seconds after the previous trigger pull, but again we did it over 20+ times with varying pauses up to 10-15min.
I didn't want to leave out the 3rd video but its was one of 2 that was able to down load to YouTube, though its not a great example.
Even if you just take when we tested the V1/ci and QT with the supposed 10 year old unit and the ci didn't alert once. Then do it at a distance while moving and it then started alerting, that's proof enough for me and most other people.
However as i stated originally we need to test this with a DSR X2 to definitively have an answer of how much better it is at distances moving.
I accept your offer to get a DSR X2 and show us it will disprove what my results show. (QT with the M3 is better at distances moving than within 50ft not moving)
Thank you for taking that burden. :D
No Thanks.
I'll save my money.......there is already plenty of video evidence out there showing how quick a new DSR is.
Exactly how long were those shots when you were moving again?
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nine_c1
No Thanks.
I'll save my money.......there is already plenty of video evidence out there showing how quick a new DSR is.
Exactly how long were those shots when you were moving again?
From .3 to .9 considering all QT pulls. But time isn't the key, the difference in non moving response compared to moving responce at a distance is. ;)
So how quick are those DSR videos? And are we able to see how fast the car was actually going on the DSR screen with all these cars running there 9500ci's that missed it?
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CJR238
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nine_c1
No Thanks.
I'll save my money.......there is already plenty of video evidence out there showing how quick a new DSR is.
Exactly how long were those shots when you were moving again?
From .3 to .9 considering all QT pulls. But time isn't the key, the difference in non moving response compared to moving responce at a distance is. ;)
So how quick are those DSR videos? And are we able to see how fast the car was actually going on the DSR screen with all these cars running there 9500ci's that missed it?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXyvXM9rA9A"]YouTube - How Radar Works Moving Stalker DSR2X Police Radar Instant On - POP[/ame]
Get your stop watch out.............by my watch these are all sub .3 second pulls and he gets a speed on most every one.
I would say time IS a factor going against this guy..........he ain't gonna give you no .9 second whiff.:p
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
When I first read the title of this thread my first thought (I know it was stupid but it was "what?")
RADIO SHACK IS PUTTING THEIR NAME ON ESCORT PRODUCTS?
(Realistic) :rolleyes:
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nine_c1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CJR238
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nine_c1
No Thanks.
I'll save my money.......there is already plenty of video evidence out there showing how quick a new DSR is.
Exactly how long were those shots when you were moving again?
From .3 to .9 considering all QT pulls. But time isn't the key, the difference in non moving response compared to moving response at a distance is. ;)
So how quick are those DSR videos? And are we able to see how fast the car was actually going on the DSR screen with all these cars running there 9500ci's that missed it?
Get your stop watch out.............by my watch these are all
sub .3 second pulls and he gets a speed on most every one.
I would say time IS a factor going against this guy..........he ain't gonna give you no .9 second whiff.:p
Exactly why we need to test the DSR X2. Hope that guy doesint blink and his supervisor didn't see that video.
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
STiMULi
When I first read the title of this thread my first thought (I know it was stupid but it was "what?")
RADIO SHACK IS PUTTING THEIR NAME ON ESCORT PRODUCTS?
(Realistic) :rolleyes:
LOL, my spelling skills aren't what they use to be. O wait i never could spell. :)
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Whistler1
Interesting results.
I hope to do this with a whistler and 9500ix at some point. The results may be different too, however the M3 extra sensitivity may have something to do with its different reaction at distances.
I will say that the V1 (1.8 3.268 & 3.872) preformed very consistently with all QT where the 9500ci though alerted almost every time, lagged slightly audibly 1/4 the time but held the alert longer (Escorts hold the signal a bit after signal is gone).
