Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
The other day when testing my 9500ci I wanted to test my theory that doing QT at close distances causes the ci to delay its alert. Plus i wanted a real test while moving, and by doing this the ci alerted almost every time.
First we tested QT while next to each other in our cars and just about every time the V1 went off in both our cars while my ci was silent.
Next we did several real tests while driving away and toward the KA 35.5 kustom golden eagle at about 1500+ft.
Though we did several runs it took that many to perfect QT with the kustom golden eagle. We wanted to test it realistically where we would still get a speed reading but still quickly triggering the unit. The results concluded that every time QT was implemented and a speed was acquired both the V1 and 9500ci went off. The times we quick triggered a bit too fast and didint get a reading on occasion the V1 & ci would miss it.
9500ci vs I 35.5 ka QT testing:
I ran my V1 which is known to do very well with QT. We did about 4+ runs simulating a real QT scenario at distances. We also did some testing with QT at closer range and the amount of KA reflection and intensity would confuse the ci and prevent alerting to QT. So we did about a 1500ft moving test.
Out of the 4+ runs with about 5 hits each time the 9500ci and V1 alerted simultaneously and the only times (2) the CI missed was when QT was implemented but speed wasn't acquired by the kustom golden eagle (very fast QT). V1 only missed once.
Results were:
V1 19 out of 20.
9500ci 18 out of 20.
Here are a few examples of the QT testing,
1- kustom golden eagle point of view:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih9Z6WQNF0E"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih9Z6WQNF0E[/ame]
2- 9500CI QT point of view:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnttirrXN6E"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnttirrXN6E[/ame]
3- 9500CI QT point of view:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcjZwo1ZZmE"]YouTube - 9500ci vs kustom golden eagle I 35.5 ka QT testing:[/ame]
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Finally something other than a bench test:D
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Before everyone gets too excited, remember my locals Q/T'd my 9500ci twice inside of 30 seconds at about 35mph.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6jEu__l-h8]YouTube - 9500ci Beaten By Quick Trigger Stalker II[/ame]
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
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 13 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.:(
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Good to see the $1600 detector is almost keeping up with the $400 one;)
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
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 13 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. DJ's video above is a perfect example where the LEO's QT may not have gotten the scion's speed and why he did it again. Or the Scion wasn't going fast enough. We will never know.
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 believe to be QT but without seeing 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.
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ghz1
Good to see the $1600 detector is almost keeping up with the $400 one;)
Agreed, finally. :banghead: :)
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
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.
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
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 13 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!
