Think it ever occurs to SML that nothing can be gained from the charts if every result is "Yes" to alert? Used to actually be worth browsing, but what a joke, a whole chart on radar detection at 1 mile! Every result is Yes, so what can be learned??
Printable View
Think it ever occurs to SML that nothing can be gained from the charts if every result is "Yes" to alert? Used to actually be worth browsing, but what a joke, a whole chart on radar detection at 1 mile! Every result is Yes, so what can be learned??
WOW, they finally operated the 16ms POP properly this year!!!
"However, the MPH Z-25 K band POP mode was not detected by any detector during any of the three tries per detector. We know it was transmitting as the gun showed the correct speed of the target vehicle."
Yes, they did, but as usual some results are in charts, some are in LONG paragraphs. And the usual misspellings "Contsant"???
Someone please tell me what that test proves, looks like a major wast of time to me:rolleyes:Looks as if they all did just fine acording to SML:eek:
*Did find something worth looking at "Girls of Radar" other than that nothing yet.
Man Carl looks old as hell. he looks like he is 90!
Talk about a useless radar test. I will have to reference these results the next time someone asks why GOL uses radar absorbing foam.
I agree with you guys, there's really nothing new here. Just think it took them a month and half to get all the info compiled and online. Should have been a weekend job.
Are they out? Link?
Edit: Oops, was looking at speedlabs.com instead of speedzones.com
Yeah, that testing is just outlandish.
Not to mention the results are presented in a manner that tries to confuse the reader. Its just pure jibberish. They need to hire someone who has used a computer before (your average 16 year old), that can put the results into a coherent and easily readable data-base.
Again, this just shows why I have to give yet ANOTHER HUGE thanks to GOL. :cool:
Thanks for your kind words. People's appreciation and our own fascination to own the best makes it all worth itQuote:
Originally Posted by AirMoore
You, thestaton and I compiled much more useful info in about 2 hours than those guys gathered in 3 days with thousands and thousands of dollars at their disposal! :lol::lol::lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by happya$$
Legal notice: This is ficticious quote from SML created by myself to demostrate a point. Thanks, DJQuote:
Originally Posted by SML
I'm glad I'm not the only one who is taken aback by this complete waste of a website...:mad:
Hey, a photo of me made it into the test results! :D
You're a star! :D Shouldn't stars have someone touch their RD for them?Quote:
Originally Posted by MEM-TEK
Gave a brief glance...but was bored quickly. I guess I've been spoiled by GOL's "fancy" graphs. :lol:
MEM-TEK I looked all through the Girls of Radar link and didn't see you anywhere!:w00t:
I didn't see that one coming! :D :pQuote:
Originally Posted by bigalinwv
We also have the results posted here:
Radar Detector Testing 2008
it does look like the whistler did well, even if all the results say is "yes yes yes" :P
Yeah, and according to those results, the Cobras are as good as the 9500ci. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky225
NO!!Quote:
Originally Posted by djrams80
look at Radar Detector Testing 2008
As you can see, the CI and the 695 performed worse than the Cobra and all other units.
On a different note, this was more like a bad attempt to test detector rampups instead of sensitivity. Everyone detected everything (almost), the only difference was the number of bars shown!!
IMO, it gets an
F
:D
Exactly why the SML website is a complete and total waste of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by djrams80
Praise GOL!!!!!:D
looks like I've wasted to much time and money on the CI & V1. I could have just gotten a Cobra and been done with it.
These guys have been doing these things for forever! I don't get it. http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/9122/shrugbi2.gif
you're talking about these guys?
Speed Zones - The Impartial Field Testing Authority
What i don't get is why they didn't put the feet it detected it at instead of bars. Really you can't get any info of which detector is better by the bars shown on a detector. Thats just dumb, and to do it in such a insane place where your detecting the radar gun at 9 miles is just stupid.
And the foam that GOL uses, should make since to everybody. I would love to see somebody say that its stupid now.
no offense but i think this was just a waste of time, it makes no sense whats so ever, and cant determine how each detector did, from lookin at it all detectors did the same, i dont know but it makes no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigalinwv
Wow, is this place ever a tough crowd.
Some of this info is useful.
One example, the distance of the Spectre detection was interesting, I had no idea.
Also, the V1 was very consistent, and this will help knowing what kind of alerts I should expect from a fully-functioning V1.
Not only that, but this gives more of an officer-centric view of what a radar detector and laser jammer do. I doubt most officers think giving out speeding tickets constitutes a major part of their job.
These results, while not anywhere near as hardcore or complete as the GOL jammer tests, are still worthwhile, IMHO.
Quoted from their "Radar Detection" sub-section:
I think that anyone who lives in Ohio, or has recently traveled through Ohio and encountered our State Highway Patrol, can readily testify to the fact that not only will you see X-band use in Ohio by our Troopers, but even "instant-on" X-band can be seen.Quote:
With 99.99% accuracy you will not encounter X band radar guns in the United States or Canada.
X-Band is alive and well in KY. It's all my home town uses.
We all know that X-band is alive and well in NJ too. I think its slowly being fazed out, but its not dead yet.
Just wondered if LEO's will use it more now since they were able to figure out how to use the unit properly with LEO's having proof of the potential for use of the POP 16ms guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbonzzz
It seems that each year the only Ka band results which SML publishes are for 34.7 Ka. I wonder why SML doesn't publish the 35.5 Ka results.
And despite what's "on the books" in terms of obtaining tracking history, we've all seen video proof, here (i.e. happya$$'s - RADAR) as well as elsewhere (LI Forums, AmcnDrm's - LIDAR), that this is FAR from the truth.
:mad::(
I dont understand why they didnt post more results from other Laser guns tested..Why only the ProLaser3 and Ultrylite?
On happya$$ video, I think it was about having visual estimate not "tracking history". That's what I understood that LEO's don't do visual estimate.Quote:
Originally Posted by TSi+WRX
^ Good point - I could be in-error with respect to the goal of happya$$'s video....
Almost reminiscent of CP, touting how much "experience" they have, yet the end result is totally worthless.Quote:
Originally Posted by djrams80
GOL thanks for your testing, forgot how worthless SML testing was. Oh well maybe next year they will spend 20K and still show nothing:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
Seems to me that SML works on both sides of the aisle and info's presented publicly are just partial. I don't think that we can get much info from them. Unlike GOL who's independent, has no strings attached, has no agenda and can present what truly are the results of the test.