Printable View
Years ago a credentialed professional engineer reviewed and tested radar detectors for the BMW CCA Roundel magazine. His reviews were widely quoted in consumer magazines. Since his retirement, all the reviews that I have seen were produced/written by people/organizations with arguably a vested interested in one or more of the products being 'reviewed'. Can you suggest a source for reviews with objective methodology and no financial interests in such products?
Thanks.
GOLQuote:
Originally Posted by ben721364
Here's my take as a RD noob.
I've done gosh knows how many months of research before I bought mine last week. I found most probable magazine reviews over time "informative" but not necessarily helpful. (Road&Track has a quickie "non-review review" this month)
That's because it's one data point from one writer/reviewer, and often in a limited time or limited type of vehicles and geographical locations.
Books (guide-books, texts, manuals, etc) are informative for the technical aspect of RD design and how radar works, but doesn't offer easy or "varied user" review assimilation: it's one person writing a book based on their level of expertise. It;s also time sensitive: what was published 2 or 4 years ago may no longer really be "current" in the tech side of things.
In the shift from paper presentation (magazines, etc) to web, the single reviewer aspect has expanded to multiple reviewers, and is available in real-time (or nearly so).
Soooo, that leaves places like RD.net where the user reviews (some biased, some not) fill that gap. Most reviews I read (and I went back through many on two brands as well as the general topics) allow me to throw all those data-points into a pot and see how different people "see" using a RD. Some share a similar situation or two, some un-related in how they want to use or encompass use of a RD.
I find the modding or customization posts actually more informative, because those people are putting their RD into either a more heavily used or special situation, or look at a problem, even if cosmetic, in a different point of view. Isn't that what we are really after or are looking for in an objective mindset when researching something?
But it's the end-result thats important: does the RD work as advertised and within what range of criteria it is tested (and importantly reported back to the forum). I'd like to believe everyone on RD.net takes an a degree of thoughtfulness into their reviews or posts they make, looks at all pros and cons, and reports that in an objective manner.
Information, no matter where it comes from, or in what format, is power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by category4
X2.
Guys of LIDAR (GOL) - Radar Detector Jammer Forum
Not to mention many members here do great smaller-testing events that are often fairly unbiased (because other members won't let them be).
GOL is the be-all-end-all (even though they are far too humble to claim such) when it comes to testing RD products in an unbiased manner.
-The only people who *think* they are bias during testing are those people who own/make products that do bad during testing.
Just remember to always question the source and the motives. Does the professional have a financial stake? Have the amateurs gotten free or heavily discounted products (discounts not readily available to others)? Is a professional or amateur test a real test or does digging around the Internet reveal them as a shill? Are all the units new (or otherwise known to be in tune) and retail blind purchased? How many people are involved in the tests to help counter one individual's bias? Get to know the people involved to help identify bias, and remember you're not dealing with double-blind procedures in any of these tests.
GOL tests are great, imho, but should not be the sole source of data when making a decision (no single source should be). There are numerous tests people have done which can help you make your choices, such as MOAC, enthusiasts all over the net, etc. Just remember as I noted above to look closely at who is involved.
I also recommend getting to know some of the more fair minded users based on their posting history, their testing, overall demeanor and you'll learn to identify those who are cream of the crop verses fan boys who will always look for the negative or positive aspects of a particular brand they hate or love. Meet with folks personally if possible to do your own testing... it can be a real eye opener (as my first round of tests with Cat4 turned out to be). Or, if you haven't yet made a purchase, attend local tests where you can personally witness performance.
I don't know. If they are professional that implies that they are paid. Who's doing the paying. Car magazines will show bias to those detectors that advertise with them, and it will show up in the review whether the author realizes or not. If there were some sort of consumer reports type of organization doing the review I would tend to give it more credence.
So that leaves us with amateurs, no disrespect to GOL. Certainly, GOL don't have the budget that a 'professional' would. But these guys are passionate about what they do, it shows, and I trust them the most for being impartial.
And a damn fine take it is! :thumb2:Quote:
Originally Posted by NoWin
Agreed. Not because there is anything wrong with GOL. There isn't. Totally trustworthy and authoritative. But there is a LOT more to choosing the "best" detector than simply comparing raw sensitivity numbers. While GOLs results are a great starting point from which to separate the winners from the losers, many other factors are needed to choose the "best" detector for a given driver.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chariot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Stalkert
i think most want the best detection possible with all the options being secondary. price may be the biggest factor for most.
i think people get a radar detector for one main reason and that is to avoid tickets. if one does that better overall than all the rest then thats the one they should get. but people do get caught up in the other stuff especially the marketing and lose sight what a radar detectors job is.
we can complicate it getting lost in the details but given a price range there arent but 2 or 3 choices on best avoiding tickets.
i think too many review(ers)s end up blurring the line far too much in order to appease the companies who are directly influencing them with free products/technology.
it shows in most every review and ends up defeating the purpose of the review altogether, which is what causes confusion amongst consumers who are doing the independent research trying to avoid just that.
And that is exactly the problem. The uneducated tend to think that "best detection" is synonymous with raw sensitivity/range. It isn't. Consequently, they see simple results, such as those published by GOL, and jump to conclusions about what is "best detection", then end up getting pwnt.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey101
The "other stuff" is much more important than you and most n00bs think. They often seriously contribute to a detector's ability to help you avoid tickets. Yes, there is a lot of marketing hype BS, like laser detection, 18 bands, VG2 immunity, and other crap. However, if you choose a detector based upon nothing more than raw sensitivity/range, you deserve the ticket you're going to get.Quote:
i think people get a radar detector for one main reason and that is to avoid tickets. if one does that better overall than all the rest then thats the one they should get. but people do get caught up in the other stuff especially the marketing and lose sight what a radar detectors job is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker
i said best detection and thats what matters most. its the reviewers job to determine that-- which was exactly my point. if theres something more important than that id like to know what it is.
Quote:
The "other stuff" is much more important than you and most n00bs think. They often seriously contribute to a detector's ability to help you avoid tickets. Yes, there is a lot of marketing hype BS, like laser detection, 18 bands, VG2 immunity, and other crap. However, if you choose a detector based upon nothing more than raw sensitivity/range, you deserve the ticket you're going to get.
I didnt say they werent important. i said they were less important than detection.
also, just because people are new here doesnt mean they are any less educated than you on the subject. talking to your members condescendingly contributes nothing to the subject.
if you want to add actual information for all the noobs, that would probably be much more effective.
No, you are correct about that. But it is exceptionally important to understand that range does not equal "best detection". They are not synonymous. Best detection is not a single measured parameter.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey101
I apologise if you felt that I was referring to you. But if I had been, I would have made that perfectly clear, not danced around it. I said you AND most n00bs. English comprehension FTW.Quote:
also, just because people are new here doesnt mean they are any less educated than you on the subject. talking to your members condescendingly contributes nothing to the subject.
No problem. The raw sensitivity or distance at which a detector is capable of receiving a signal becomes almost completely irrelevant if that detector has delayed reaction time to those signals. Most RD tests are against constantly transmitting radar sources. Problem is, probably more than half of all police radar guns are not constantly transmitting. They are triggered manually against each target by the officer. Consequently, if you have a detector that takes a couple of seconds to determine whether or not it is going to report the signal to you or not, you will often miss that warning altogether. All you have to do is read the number of people who come here crying that they never got an alert for their radar ticket to know just how often this happens. It's a lot. So yes, you must have more than a detector which simply has range in order to have optimal protection. And with the multi-mile distances that today's top of the line detectors detect at, you would be much smarter to give up sensitivity for reaction time in order to achieve "best detection". Even then, you still get multi miles of warning, but you are less likely to be beaten by instant-on radar.Quote:
if you want to add actual information for all the noobs, that would probably be much more effective.
There are a number of great detectors out there, but not one will meet the needs of all people. You may have to try a few to see which has the features, sensitivity and ability to translate that info into something you can use.
If money is no object then the best detector is actually a combination of detectors, The 9500ci and the V1. The 9500ci for raw sensitivity and GPS features and the V1 for arrows, QT/IO response. That will set you back about 2K. Now if $ are really a factor you have to figure out what you really need in a detector, what you are willing to sacrifice and what your budget really is!
I would go with importing an STi-R Plus to pair with that V1 for the best combination. Not sure how the price compares though TBOQuote:
Originally Posted by category4
Prices I have seen on the STi-R+ are $1300. If you check around you can find the 9500ci in that neighborhood. Heck with RB's forum discount you are close to that and you can have it tomorrow!!Quote:
Originally Posted by RiptideI would go with importing an STi-R Plus to pair with that V1 for the best combination. Not sure how the price compares though TBOQuote:
Originally Posted by category4
considering the fact the all the GOL guys are from different regions, have different driving styles, and differing opinions on what is important - you can pretty much be assured that they are the best in the business and what they say is "golden". you would be well served to "just" listen to them. if you can think it - they have done it. they are some of the most well versed individuals on the subject as one might expect to find. when you have the best - you dont need to listen or read others opinions.
Purely objective, real world reviews done by humans are impossible. If the guy pulling the trigger of the gun or driving the car is a fan of one particular detector or brand, he may — even subconsciously — alter the results himself. Slow/late trigger pulls, slowing or speeding the car up slightly, etc.
Reading all the reviews and then combining that with your own real world experience is the best way to tell what detector is best — or best for you anyway.
There is a flaw in their tests which skews the V1 results: The non-V1 detectors have pop-on, which slows their performance verses pop-off. Another issue is half the detectors came from the same retail source. If you had to pick only one source, GOL would be it. But you don't.... there's plenty of good research out there and on this site. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BullyDawg19
On the 09 GOL test page, it says every detector was tested with "factory default settings". So actually, all the V1s (excluding the 3.813 of course) had POP ON. The Escorts all had POP OFF since that is their default setting and the Whistler's had POP ON:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chariot
http://www.escortradar.com/pdf/9500ixOwnersManual.pdf
http://www.escortradar.com/pdf/9500ciOwnersManual.pdf
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/media/i...L000067031.pdf
http://www.whistlergroup.com/manuals...pro78seman.pdf
I stand corrected. The remark does stand though for the SE RDs, as they have been shown to perform better with pop off.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopyc4On the 09 GOL test page, it says every detector was tested with "factory default settings". So actually, all the V1s (excluding the 3.813 of course) had POP ON. The Escorts all had POP OFF since that is their default setting and the Whistler's had POP ON:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chariot
http://www.escortradar.com/pdf/9500ixOwnersManual.pdf
http://www.escortradar.com/pdf/9500ciOwnersManual.pdf
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/media/i...L000067031.pdf
http://www.whistlergroup.com/manuals...pro78seman.pdf
Shown where? Is there test data supporting this? Link?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chariot
Get the admins to reindex the database for 2 letter searches (QT and IO) and I can post links to videos of QT testing with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by djrams80Shown where? Is there test data supporting this? Link?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chariot
The Whistlers performed admirably at GoL during I/O testing, with pop turned on. I don't think they could have done much better. I tested the Whistlers for a month in the real world with pop turned off and it didn't seem to help any.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chariot
This?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chariot
http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...-q-t-test.html
What would be more valuable would be a C/O test comparing POP ON vs. OFF.
http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...-q-t-test.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by djrams80The Whistlers performed admirably at GoL during I/O testing, with pop turned on. I don't think they could have done much better. I tested the Whistlers for a month in the real world with pop turned off and it didn't seem to help any.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chariot
(Edit- lol, looks like someone else found the same thread and posted moments before I did)
They caught I/O, overall, in fewer milliseconds with POP-Off. Of course you tried to pick apart that test as well.
Seems Stealth Stalker is fairly objective about them:
http://www.radardetector.net/forums/610788-post3.html
Edit - not needed, already said it above. :)
I'm not picking any test apart. Those videos show that the Whistler performs better against Q/T with pop off. The Whistlers already performed well against our I/O test criteria, so those are clearly not the results that are being questioned by the Whistler zombies. Let's test to find out if pop off on the Whistler SEs improves C/O performance or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chariot
Also, Stealth Stalker's comments are anything but objective. He doesn't like Belscort products and has been clear as day about that. As far as I know, he has never used anything other than a V1 in the real world. It's his opinion that responsiveness is more important that sensitivity. Based upon what I've seen using both Belscorts and Whistlers against many real world encounters, I disagree, whole-heartedly.
Sig worthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by djrams80
LOL! Well, we all have our bias for one reason or another. The only thing that separates us all is what our bias is and why we have it. My bias is for whatever performs best under the conditions that I regularly face. Consequently, what strikes me as "best" for me isn't necessarily going to jibe with someone -- as was pointed out earlier -- in a totally different part of the country or world. But I would maintain that, aside from regional priorities, my observations and opinions are indeed "objective". I don't give a rat's arse if Mike V or Belscort or Whistler make another cent or not. There's nothing in it for me either way.
Is responsiveness more important to me than raw sensitivity? You bet it is! Because there isn't a dimes difference between the top tier detectors raw sensitivity. Any of them have more than adequate range to save you in any straight-on c/o encounter. The only significant difference between them is the conditions under which they excel. Hills, curves, and instant-on are the three parameters that separate the best from the also-rans. And when someone gives you an opinion on detectors that totally ignores those parameters, they are doing you a serious disservice. Are they being less than objective? Not necessarily. They may simply be ignorant to the existence or importance of them. So let's not get carried away throwing this "unobjective" label around here.
The fact remains that, all things considered (except for stealth), I find more to like about the Whistlers than the Belscorts. Are they perfect? No. Djrams80 has very well documented their shortcomings, and I believe objectively so. But in the land where I/O rules with an iron fist, I'd still take one over even a Redline.
I'd bet every penny that I own that a RedLine would pickup a much higher percentage of those I/O shots than any Whistler.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker
And I don't seriously doubt that. I have never tested a Redline myself. Like most here, I'm at the mercy of what is presented here by devoted members like yourself. From there, I attempt to extrapolate what that means to me and my driving. That's what this forum is all about.Quote:
Originally Posted by djrams80
Out of the V1 and Redline are these 2 RD's neck to neck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth StalkerAnd I don't seriously doubt that. I have never tested a Redline myself. Like most here, I'm at the mercy of what is presented here by devoted members like yourself. From there, I attempt to extrapolate what that means to me and my driving. That's what this forum is all about.Quote:
Originally Posted by djrams80
Out of the reviews of both of these RD's which one has the better review so far.
I dislike all the companies fairly equally at this point, and feel they are all failing us in one way or another... I guess that is fairly objective then... :p
I couldn't possibly agree more with this statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by AirMoore
This is basically imposable to find now a days. The only way to truly get good objective review/tests of a product is by accumulating other users experiences and opinions to narrow down your selection, then do the testing for your self.Quote:
Originally Posted by ben721364
Bias is in evadable, and by doing it your self at least the bias is your own. ;)
Thank you. I take it that GOL is not associated with a company that sells, assembles or manufactures radar detectors. Correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by category4GOLQuote:
Originally Posted by ben721364
Thanks folks. I will keep looking for objective ratings from organizations with no vested interests.
Correct, they are a group of enthusiasts that test countermeasures basically because they love to do so. They only take funds from private donors and not from manufacturers, blind purchase the product they test and pay their own expenses to perform the tests.Quote:
Originally Posted by ben721364Thank you. I take it that GOL is not associated with a company that sells, assembles or manufactures radar detectors. Correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by category4GOLQuote:
Originally Posted by ben721364
:) LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by the chariotsig worthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by djrams80
I was getting all excited, in a good way, about GOL until I read this on the 2009 Results page:
"A big thanks goes out to:
BuyRadarDetectors.com
for sponsoring us by loaning us several brand new retail radar detectors for the test!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by category4Correct, they are a group of enthusiasts that test countermeasures basically because they love to do so. They only take funds from private donors and not from manufacturers, blind purchase the product they test and pay their own expenses to perform the tests.Quote:
Originally Posted by ben721364Thank you. I take it that GOL is not associated with a company that sells, assembles or manufactures radar detectors. Correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by category4GOLQuote:
Originally Posted by ben721364
One must also be realstic when doing research. What n00bs need to know is that GOL is a group of guys doing this testing on THEIR dime and their time. There are a substantial number of different rd's available for testing and as such it would be almost prohibitively expensive to buy every version of every rd made today. My point is you should not be "disturbed" to see a group such as GOL, being sponsored by retailers who are official retailers for the rd manufacturers. Once you have been around awhile, you will see how these retailers are held in high esteem here.