Not Good. Not Good At All
Not good. Not good at all.
I've had questions about some of the UHP possibly using QT before. I've had conversation with one that doesn't follow "proper tracking protocol" when sitting in the median on I-70 and very much sounded like he was QT'ing folks to avoid letting on any radar detector users know that he runs a tough chunk of interstate.
I followed one yesterday for about 5 miles going down kind of a twisty turning canyon. I got two Ka hits with the Redline early on and then nothing for the next 2 or 3 miles and a dozen cars........OK, I figure he's not on the button anymore....... And then wham, he flips a b!tch and lights up some guy in a Eclipse hauling some major azz.
Did he radar him?? I don't know, but it worries me that he was radaring the entire time and the Redline sat deaf waiting for the 1-5 second threshold.
Re: Not Good. Not Good At All
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MMeteor
Not good. Not good at all.
I've had questions about some of the UHP possibly using QT before. I've had conversation with one that doesn't follow "proper tracking protocol" when sitting in the median on I-70 and very much sounded like he was QT'ing folks to avoid letting on any radar detector users know that he runs a tough chunk of interstate.
I followed one yesterday for about 5 miles going down kind of a twisty turning canyon. I got two Ka hits with the Redline early on and then nothing for the next 2 or 3 miles and a dozen cars........OK, I figure he's not on the button anymore....... And then wham, he flips a b!tch and lights up some guy in a Eclipse hauling some major azz.
Did he radar him?? I don't know, but it worries me that he was radaring the entire time and the Redline sat deaf waiting for the 1-5 second threshold.
How long have you been using the redline?
Re: Not Good. Not Good At All
My redline misses QT or IO or whatever it is there using about 50% of the time. I know because my STi-R+ alerts me to it.
Re: Not Good. Not Good At All
This should be no surprise to you because we all know Escorts FAILS at QT. If this is a tactic used in your area then get a V1, at least you'll have a chance at early warning.
Re: Not Good. Not Good At All
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silver Bullet
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MMeteor
Not good. Not good at all.
I've had questions about some of the UHP possibly using QT before. I've had conversation with one that doesn't follow "proper tracking protocol" when sitting in the median on I-70 and very much sounded like he was QT'ing folks to avoid letting on any radar detector users know that he runs a tough chunk of interstate.
I followed one yesterday for about 5 miles going down kind of a twisty turning canyon. I got two Ka hits with the Redline early on and then nothing for the next 2 or 3 miles and a dozen cars........OK, I figure he's not on the button anymore....... And then wham, he flips a b!tch and lights up some guy in a Eclipse hauling some major azz.
Did he radar him?? I don't know, but it worries me that he was radaring the entire time and the Redline sat deaf waiting for the 1-5 second threshold.
How long have you been using the redline?
About 2 months.
I've run it pretty much exclusively for the time I've had it and have run my V1 just 2 times while my wife had my car. I've had some great alerts with the Redline and one mind blower Ka band of about 6 miles with a pretty good turn and some short ups and downs inbetween.
I'm worried now about the Redline's lengthly quietness before it actually responds.
Re: Not Good. Not Good At All
Looks like we're back to the QT thing again. They are some that say the QT is no problem and most of these people don't have a V1 to protect them. QT is starting to pop up in more and more places. This might not be a legal way of getting your speed, but when you get a ticket, it is going to be your word against the officers word and who do you think is going to WIN. NOT US!
Re: Not Good. Not Good At All
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milkman
Looks like we're back to the QT thing again. They are some that say the QT is no problem and most of these people don't have a V1 to protect them. QT is starting to pop up in more and more places. This might not be a legal way of getting your speed, but when you get a ticket, it is going to be your word against the officers word and who do you think is going to WIN. NOT US!
Exactly. Well said.
Re: Not Good. Not Good At All
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milkman
Looks like we're back to the QT thing again. They are some that say the QT is no problem and most of these people don't have a V1 to protect them.
Yes, but the Texas Q/T expert and V1 owner, dslrip, had this to say in his best and most honest post ever:
With everything being said about this, the one thing that is a FACT is ...... If you are the target when it comes to I/O or Q/T you are OWNED. But the satisfaction out of it at the very least, is the device on your windshield, or in your grill as far as a remote mount, had better alert to this.
I guess alerting to it is better than NOT alerting...but it would still be a royal p!ss off to know you had the BEST detector out there alerting to QT and still end up with a ticket.
In the end, like a direct laser hit with no jammers but getting an RD alert, it does no good.
I'm a V1 owner who has gotten hit a few times with QT and IO but got alerted very late and only escaped being ticketed from luck because the LEO gave me slack or got too lazy to chase. I was dead meat!
Re: Not Good. Not Good At All
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Monte1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
milkman
Looks like we're back to the QT thing again. They are some that say the QT is no problem and most of these people don't have a V1 to protect them.
Yes, but the Texas Q/T expert and V1 owner, dslrip, had this to say in his best and most honest post ever:
With everything being said about this, the one thing that is a FACT is ...... If you are the target when it comes to I/O or Q/T you are OWNED. But the satisfaction out of it at the very least, is the device on your windshield, or in your grill as far as a remote mount, had better alert to this.
And dslirp is right. If you are the target of QT or I/O, you're finished. But the key to defeating QT or I/O is to pick up the short bursts that the LEO is using to target cars ahead of you so that when it is your turn to get hit by I/O or QT, you have already slowed down.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0OOhPcHdPc]YouTube - Escort 9500ci and V1 3.813 vs. Moving I/O Ka 34.7[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQsee1RrLAE]YouTube - Escort 9500ci and V1 3.813 vs. I/O Ka 35.5[/ame]
Re: Not Good. Not Good At All
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MMeteor
Not good. Not good at all.
I've had questions about some of the UHP possibly using QT before. I've had conversation with one that doesn't follow "proper tracking protocol" when sitting in the median on I-70 and very much sounded like he was QT'ing folks to avoid letting on any radar detector users know that he runs a tough chunk of interstate.
I followed one yesterday for about 5 miles going down kind of a twisty turning canyon. I got two Ka hits with the Redline early on and then nothing for the next 2 or 3 miles and a dozen cars........OK, I figure he's not on the button anymore....... And then wham, he flips a b!tch and lights up some guy in a Eclipse hauling some major azz.
Did he radar him?? I don't know, but it worries me that he was radaring the entire time and the Redline sat deaf waiting for the 1-5 second threshold.
UHP. That adds another possibility here depending on which band he was on. If 33.8 Ka, it's possible the LEO could have switched over to POP mode.:eek:
Enabling POP on the RedLine would be advantageous in this case.
If it was another band, then you can be sure he was pulling shots at or under .5 seconds where the RedLine is about 50-50. In this case we have another real world encounter to submit to Escort as evidence their RDs are getting burned by QT!
In the event this was not 33.8, I would ask that you submit this as an issue with your RedLine on the Escort Radar forum. Same for anyone else that has compelling evidence of a recent no-alert condition from their Belscort, suspecting QT as the issue. The reason I think this is important now is that Belscort is just getting over all the new product releases from the 4th quarter of last year and their latest software release. We need to put addressing the response times of their detectors at the top of the list for things to do next!;)
