-
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!
-
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).
-
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CJR238
When i get my 9500ix back i hope to test it as well.
In the mean time, I'll be glad to loan you either my Redline (or ix) if you want to repeat these tests. PM me your address. I'll cover shipping both ways.
-
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Swamp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CJR238
When i get my 9500ix back i hope to test it as well.
In the mean time, I'll be glad to loan you either my Redline (or ix) if you want to repeat these tests. PM me your address. I'll cover shipping both ways.
Thank you very much for the offer but i should have my ix back soon. The RedLine would be very interesting to test so i may take you up on that if i set up a DSR X2 test.
I work allot of hours including weekends so its difficult to get time to do tests like this.
Anyone have a DSR X2 so i can test?
-
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CJR238
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Swamp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CJR238
When i get my 9500ix back i hope to test it as well.
In the mean time, I'll be glad to loan you either my Redline (or ix) if you want to repeat these tests. PM me your address. I'll cover shipping both ways.
Thank you very much for the offer but i should have my ix back soon. The RedLine would be very interesting to test so i may take you up on that if i set up a DSR X2 test.
I work allot of hours including weekends so its difficult to get time to do tests like this.
Anyone have a DSR X2 so i can test?
gather up alot of radardetectors and il bring my toys out and we can test them all out again,ill see what i can do with a dsrx2.
-
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:
RadioShack Jumps on Report of Possible Sale - DealBook Blog - NYTimes.com
-
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Radar
Now that news elicited a great big "WHO CARES?"
It's been over 20 years since I have purchased anything more expensive than a resistor from Radio Shaft. Their business model is simply not competitive anymore.
As for the QT results, I'm all for more real-world testing, but unless we can all agree on the validity of the methodology it would just be a waste of time.
Perhaps we should start developing such a QT test methodology, gather up a few of the best RADAR guns, and settle this question once and for all?
-
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
radarrob
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CJR238
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Swamp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CJR238
When i get my 9500ix back i hope to test it as well.
In the mean time, I'll be glad to loan you either my Redline (or ix) if you want to repeat these tests. PM me your address. I'll cover shipping both ways.
Thank you very much for the offer but i should have my ix back soon. The RedLine would be very interesting to test so i may take you up on that if i set up a DSR X2 test.
I work allot of hours including weekends so its difficult to get time to do tests like this.
Anyone have a DSR X2 so i can test?
gather up alot of radardetectors and il bring my toys out and we can test them all out again,ill see what i can do with a dsrx2.
Count my STi-R in, we can compare it to the CI and see if Ka segmentation helps
-
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ghz1
Good to see the $1600 detector is almost keeping up with the $400 one;)
Yes, but silence IS golden!
Cheer up though, at least you have direction arrows to show you where your falses are :D
-
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silver Bullet
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ghz1
Good to see the $1600 detector is almost keeping up with the $400 one;)
Yes, but silence IS golden!
Cheer up though, at least you have direction arrows to show you where your falses are :D
It is golden when you handing it over:D:D
Did you not see DJ's post
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6jEu__l-h8&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - 9500ci Beaten By Quick Trigger Stalker II[/ame]
and yes it is very good to know where the radar source is coming from:thumb2:
-
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ghz1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silver Bullet
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ghz1
Good to see the $1600 detector is almost keeping up with the $400 one;)
Yes, but silence IS golden!
Cheer up though, at least you have direction arrows to show you where your falses are :D
It is golden when you handing it over:D:D
Did you not see DJ's post
and yes it is very good to know where the radar source is coming from:thumb2:
I did see it...what exactly is your point? Did you read CJR's post? I guess in your opinion DJ's experience totally refutes CJR's testing??? What is it that you're saying :confused:
As for the arrows, to each his own. To me they are overrated. I don't care where the source is I simply brake. I guess when you have that many falses you need an arrow to confirm you just passed a 7-11 and not a LEO...????
-
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nine_c1
Thanks for posting this. During the video he actually clarifies that what he calls "instant-on" is, in fact, POP. On other videos where he does the same thing and pulls vehicles over, I'm assuming he's issuing citations with POP alone.
-
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
I witness the escort x50 , STi, and what every blinder guy had failed during the S. florida meet. EVALTO was the trigger man and Blinder guy was the driver with a radio between the 2. We only counted scores when a reading occured. V1 was 90% and the others failed at 25%. We also tested how long it takes before the X50 alerted with a full blast of K or KA and it was 2 seconds.
-
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DrCoke
We also tested how long it takes before the X50 alerted with a full blast of K or KA and it was 2 seconds.
2 seconds.......hmm, do you recall the settings and software version?
-
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hiddencam
Thanks for posting this. During the video he actually clarifies that what he calls "instant-on" is, in fact, POP. On other videos where he does the same thing and pulls vehicles over, I'm assuming he's issuing citations with POP alone.
Except Stalker doesn't make POP guns, MPH does so he is in fact shooting Instant On. He may have gotten his words mixed up but he isn't shooting POP or issuing tickets with POP alone, he's actually doing legit Instant On shots.
-
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cooljay
Except Stalker doesn't make POP guns, MPH does so he is in fact shooting Instant On. He may have gotten his words mixed up but he isn't shooting POP or issuing tickets with POP alone, he's actually doing legit Instant On shots.
:thumb2: Gotcha, thanks fer settin' me head straight.
:beer:
-
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cooljay
Except Stalker doesn't make POP guns, MPH does so he is in fact shooting Instant On.
That checks! :thumb2: In fact, if you want to read more I copied this excerpt off another RD web site...(thanks Rocky2 for posting):
"May 08, 2009
Nevada Issues Contract to MPH Industries for BEE III Radar with Radar detector-defeating POP Technology
The State of Nevada issued a contract to MPH Industries for its BEE III radar on May 4, 2009. In prior contracts with the State, MPH had sold over 600 BEE III radars to police agencies in the State. This contract will allow MPH to do so for at least two more years.
One requirement of the bid was that the State’s radar “should include a mode of operation that allows measuring the speed of targets using a microwave beam that does not set off radar detectors.” This is a good description of MPH’s POP Technology, and in fact, in an addendum, the State stated that “The specifications stipulate … that the ‘POP’ mode is preferred ….”.
MPH President Kevin Willis stated that MPH is proud have the State’s radar contract once again, since the Nevada Highway Patrol is an important customer to MPH. Commenting on the BEE III radar, he stated that “its POP technology is allowing officers to catch the most flagrant speeders. Without POP, these drivers’ radar detectors would alert them in time to slow down before being measured by police.” Mr. Willis also stated that “in several cases, POP technology has been the deciding factor for agencies choosing MPH radars over competing radars.”
Why is POP Technology important? POP allows a radar to measure speeds much more quickly than traditional radars, resulting in the radar detector normally seeing the radar as unrecognizable noise and ignoring it. POP Technology takes away a speeder’s advantage if he has a radar detector.
On their website, (Q&As: Speed--law enforcement), the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety states:
“The only purpose of a radar detector is to avoid speed law enforcement.”
“Use of a radar detector demonstrates an intention to speed that distinguishes users of these devices from drivers who speed occasionally or inadvertently. In a survey of users, more than half admitted to driving faster than they would without their ‘fuzz busters.’”
As they say, “the only purpose of a radar detector is to avoid speed enforcement.” POP Technology is the only tool that allows officers to use radar while not alerting radar detectors, taking the advantage away from detector-using speeders.
POP Technology was invented by MPH in 1997, and has been adapted since. POP Technology is only available on MPH radars. POP Technology is incorporated in many of MPH’s premium radars, including BEE III, Enforcer, Z-25, and Z-35. POP Technology has been discussed in articles appearing in Law Enforcement Technology, Police and Security News, and the Wall Street Journal."
-
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silver Bullet
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ghz1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silver Bullet
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ghz1
Good to see the $1600 detector is almost keeping up with the $400 one;)
Yes, but silence IS golden!
Cheer up though, at least you have direction arrows to show you where your falses are :D
It is golden when you handing it over:D:D
Did you not see DJ's post
and yes it is very good to know where the radar source is coming from:thumb2:
I did see it...what exactly is your point? Did you read CJR's post? I guess in your opinion DJ's experience totally refutes CJR's testing??? What is it that you're saying :confused:
As for the arrows, to each his own. To me they are overrated. I don't care where the source is I simply brake. I guess when you have that many falses you need an arrow to confirm you just passed a 7-11 and not a LEO...????
What I'm saying is the $1600 detector misses quick trigger sometimes no big deal right. and as for the arrows well even thou it's a false you know it's a false and you know where it's from so speed on. It's kinda for the radar geeks:geekon: I like it my self, But hey if your the kinda guy that doesn't like it go auto scan and completely miss that k band speed camera. I think we should leave it at that IMO. all good
-
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Radar
I guess it is time to shake out my piggy bank and go deep and get access to my $900 million and start the buy back up now
-
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ghz1
What I'm saying is the $1600 detector misses quick trigger sometimes no big deal right. and as for the arrows well even thou it's a false you know it's a false and you know where it's from so speed on. It's kinda for the radar geeks:geekon: I like it my self, But hey if your the kinda guy that doesn't like it go auto scan and completely miss that k band speed camera. I think we should leave it at that IMO. all good
:beer:
-
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cooljay
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hiddencam
Thanks for posting this. During the video he actually clarifies that what he calls "instant-on" is, in fact, POP. On other videos where he does the same thing and pulls vehicles over, I'm assuming he's issuing citations with POP alone.
Except Stalker doesn't make POP guns, MPH does so he is in fact shooting Instant On. He may have gotten his words mixed up but he isn't shooting POP or issuing tickets with POP alone, he's actually doing legit Instant On shots.
One of my LEO friends calls I/O Popping them. Kind of funny how tere terms are difrent than ars, they use terms quite loosely.
"Legit" would require a tracking history however. ;):)
-
Re: Realistic 9500ci Q/T testing
Interesting test and results. Thank you for sharing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CJR238
"Legit" would require a tracking history however. ;):)
:( I wish.
