|
|
|
|
|
I just wanted to put my 2 cents worth in. I'm currently a V1 owner, (not a Zombie) and have owned lots of units in my 23 years of driving.
Basically, when I saw the results of this test, I couldn't help but think--oh well, another test by the clown, CP. I remember seeing his tests from years ago, and having the same low opinion of his tests back then. Now, he comes on this forum with a holier than thou attitude and attempts to dress-down anyone who dares question is absolute authority on anything detector related.
I couldn't let this all just slip by without having to interject. In a nutshell, I find CP's responses condescending and arrogant. I guess he has not come across anyone that has ever challenged his findings. Reporting your tests to the uniformed press that blindly agree to anything you say because you are a self proclaimed "expert" isn't the same as trying to pull a fast one on people on this forum.
Kudos go out to the forum members who have challenged and questioned
CP's "tests"--and I use the term loosely. I can judge his demeanor from the style of writing in his responses. This is a man who isn't used to being questioned. When you're a self proclaimed expert, its not to far fetched to think of yourself as self proclaimed genius as well.
Anyway, I have taken CP's last post (2139 words--new record on this forum I think) and have added my comments to some of his paragraphs. I thankfully, haven't reproduced his entire previous post, just the paragraphs I am commenting on.
I have no agenda. I don't know this guy, or anyone else on this forum for that matter. Like baseball umpires, I'm just calling it as I see it.
Here goes:
Amazing..you can insult people, stating they have no life, and that's ok? People post on this website because they are passionate about radar detectors, not because they are losers. Libelous behavior?? Calling out BS when we see it, and forcing someone like yourself to defend your "unique" results, is hardly libelous. Get a grip. Me thinks thou dost protest too much.Originally Posted by radartest
Did a word count on your last post--2,139, so Craig, it looks like you set the new mind numbing record. Once again, don't call the kettle black, when you're the pot.Shooter2jim devotes a mind-numbing 2,007 words in just one of his two most recent personal attacks, most of them far off the mark. Example: “I said that you made the disclaimer that with "optional accessories" the V1 goes to $540. But, if you're going to add the cost of the accessories to your evaluation, then give a complete description of those accessories and their features, and don't say that you didn't have the space. Unlike print articles, web sites cost virtually nothing.”
Sounds like you got $crewed. Not my problem. Maybe you should take a 40 hour class in budgeting, or project management.My stories cost quite a bit. The STi vs. V1 story required a team of two, a pair of vehicles, five radar units purchased for $13,000 and it entailed 165 man-hours of effort. That was to conduct the test, which also required five 240-mile round trips alone to one of the two test sites.
Antenna alignment? Did you take apart your V1? I won't even bother going into the issues related to that, in the interest of fairness.Two of those trips weren’t strictly necessary. I could have simply reported that the V1 failed during the first test and saved myself the trouble. But I spent another $400 and gave it a second chance in the interest of fairness. This entailed doing a completely new test; you don't come back another day and resume testing where you left off. Antenna alignment, atmospheric conditions and several other variables make it impossible to replicate test conditions. You must start from scratch.
It took you 40 hours to write that report? Maybe a 40 hour class in creative writing would help.Photography, writing and reconfiguring the Web site took another 40 hours. And you got the story for free. If you’d have paid big bucks for it, maybe I’d be more tolerant of your adolescent, mean-spirited response.
I'm not an engineer, but then, I guess you'll accuse anyone that questions your absolute authority on this subject of being given to rant. But then, I digress, it seems I've missed the point here. You seem to have an issue with engineers and that they rant. Maybe 4+years of university education gives then the right to an educated opinion.Funny, but I’d have bet that you’re an engineer. They seem to be the type most given to rants like yours. But you’re certainly not a microwave engineer and marketing doesn’t appear to be your strong point either.
Amazing!!! Even after constantly trashing Mike V, his still holds your opinion in such high esteem that your criticisms can determine what Mike Valentine will do next. Can you ask him to send me a free V1?Why do you think Valentine belatedly began offering all these accessories? For the same reason he finally added visual band ID. After I'd mentioned in print that the V1 lacked visual band ID, something any expert considers helpful in identifying what band of radar you're encountering, Mike's curt response: "Visual band ID is just a Band-Aid for lousy audio." Two years later he added ID icons, with no fanfare. He did the same with POP detection after telling the world for years that POP couldn't work, wasn't reliable and so on. But it actually works quite well. And now he's promoting it as a value-added feature.
Valentine is a privately held company. How do you know how many units they sold last year? Since they don't file with the SEC, you no doubt must have a "mole" somewhere in their office with access to sales records. I guess this is the only way you can be for certain that he is getting "killed" by Belscort.Escort and BEL are killing him, witnessed by the steady decline of V1 sales over the past five years. And since Mike has told anyone who’ll listen that his is “the perfect radar detector” (and I'm quoting), you can bet the only reason these accessories exist is because he’s forced to ofer them, in order to compete with BEL and Escort.
I disagree. But again, to each his own. Your opinion on the add on's + $3.50 buy me a cheesburger.So instead you’re asked to buy expensive add-ons that approximate the features that come standard on competing products. Rear antenna or not, a basic V1 isn’t remotely competitive in features with a box-stock RX65, STi or 8500 X50.
That's the point. V1's are made to detect radar from the rear and to notify you. Every other detector relies on reflections, and leaves it up to you to search around for the source. I for one, like to know that the signal came from behind, so I can adjust my driving accordingly.And no, it's unnecessary to follow an 18-wheeler to get 6-mile rear radar range with an STi. Any road sign, structure or similar reflective surface will do nicely.
Again, allowing some leeway for dramatic flair, you make it sound like a squirrel's next of wires in the car. Get real.'And since V1 owners love to hide the V1 and its laser-bright status and alert lights in a bid to keep them away from prying eyes, reaching the unit sometimes isn't an option. For that you'll need to shell out $39 for a remote display and hard-wiring kit and string the wires around the cockpit. Including the optional $29 carrying case, when equipped similarly to the BEL and Escort, the Valentine's all-up price is $516.'
Your point....?? Any detector, will fail if a cruiser sneaks up on your 6, and zaps you, so why are you harping on the V1?Myers writes: “Another perfect example of why the V1's arrows are invaluable. Most people don't drive- nor should they have to- with their eyes checking their sixes all the time. Especially if traffic ahead is getting heavy.”
That speaks volumes about his knowledge of driving and of speed-enforcement technology and tactics. Ever heard of pacing? How about VASCAR or Tracker? None uses radar and they’re all used from behind. On both cars and motorcycles. Officers love to sneak up behind smug V1 owners at night, especially those like Myers who rarely check their mirrors from one month to the next, preferring instead to put their trust in the Radar Locator. After pacing them, many officers I know, both here and abroad, then flick on their radar, watching as the V1’s pinball arcade of visual alerts comes alive, followed quickly by brake lights.
I will refer you to the V1 website for a list of the user-programmable features. Your definition is different than mine.So you love the Radar Locator in town, huh? Presumably your hobbies include mapping the location of every door opener in the city. When they’re being honest, most V1 owners and nearly every ex-owner complain about the constant bombardment of multiple bogeys in town, usually caused by a single source that ricochets around, causing the V1 to interpret the signal as multiple attacks from different directions. But of course, there’s no way to disable this feature. After all, the V1 has no user-programmable features, what with being the perfect radar detector and all. None was contemplated at the time of its design. (And no, I don’t count the resetting of dip switches as user-programmable features. My definition of “user programmable” is an action that takes a few seconds at most while driving.
Thank God for GOL, for doing a test that has never been done before. To use a tired cliche, that's called thinking outside the box. No one cares if a detector has 10.1 versus 10.11 miles of detection range. It's pointless in real life. So, testers like yourself who seem to think that this really matters are missing the point. Wrapping the units in radar absorbing foam allowed for a test that could be accomplished in a shorter range, and one that provided meaningful results, unlike your costly, huge man hour, predictable Belscort love fest "tests."In response to your statement, “I don't care how or where the GOL guys do their testing as long as it's the tests and reporting of those tests is [sic] consistent for each detector.... and the failings of each detector (V1 included) are properly noted. In fact, their last test was more sceintific than any I've ever seen from you, because they included more than one sample of each of the top detectors, and GOL showed variances between them.”
I'd suggest that you ought to care about how the test was conducted. A couple of points here, aside from their wrapping the units in radar-attenuating foam, which has never been done in the history of consumer electronics.
No one at GOL has an agenda, unlike yourself and other "testers" and I use the term loosely. Real day to day units were tested, ones that were put back into their respective cars at the end of the tests.One, I tested two V1s and three STis. Two, they tested units furnished by anyone who cared to donate one, which I would guess may also have included Escort/BEL. Regardless, it's a dumb idea. A legitimate product tester NEVER tests product supplied by third parties. And I mean never. The only ethical way is to purchase units at retail, as I do. It’s the only way to remove that variable from the mix. Don’t believe me?
Agreed. Isn't that what GOL does. I would assume different individuals who purchased different radar detectors for their own use would qualify as anonymous. However, since you are a self proclaimed expert in detector tests, how can you anonymously purchase units? "High there Mike Valentine, this is Craig Peterson. I wish to purchase a V1, anonymously of course, for a detector test that I will be conducting, without any hidden agenda, however I willbe reporting mid-test, back to Belscort."Then why do you think SML’s test results of many units differ so widely from mine? Easy answer. The manufacturers not only supply the test samples, they pay a fee and they’re also allowed to attend the tests. In the world of product testing, this simply isn’t done. The rules are clear: anonymously purchased samples, no manufacturers in attendance and no money changes hands. Period.
The problem is, your responses so far have smacked of arrogance, and contempt. This forum is full of well educated professionals who have well thought out opinions on this subject. You are not dealing with individuals ignorant of the facts. And speaking of facts, when you publish "test" results that differ radically from other results, or contradict test chamber decibel sensitivity, then we're gonna call those results out.As for my putting a “negative twist on anything related to Mike V. and GOL”, I’d say you’re ignoring history. I’ve made only one post on your forum and after having been attacked incessantly by the GOL guys, thought that perhaps just once maybe I deserved the chance to respond. And I did it privately, so as not to embarrass them. Which itself drew attacks. If a single response, after being the target of the V1 lobby since 1993, constitutes making “every effort.. to attack and speak negative [sic] about them” you’re apparently no student of history.
Hearsay. Inadmissble in any court.I’ve never met or spoken to the guy but I know a lot of people who do know him well. And the reason Mike was forced out of CMI was due to his abrasive, vindictive and increasingly aberrant behavior, not to mention an ego bigger than Oklahoma. Twenty years in the business and I have yet to meet a single person in the industry who likes the guy. And no, I’ve never said the original Escort wasn’t a landmark achievement. It was. I owned two of them.
J :wink:
Just my opinion but humor me. These back and for attacks make for interesting reads but I personally feel that it is ok to question how tests were done. But personal attacks, name calling, down grading someone doesn't really lend to the spirit of this forum. I don't always agree with some of the methods or results of some tests, but mud slinging and kind of banter such as "Did not" Did too" "Did not" "Did too" are counter productive and lead to bad feelings among individuals. Let's all try to be adults and leave the school ground stuff to well...... school ground kids. Just an old man here trying to express an opinion that hopefully will lead to a more positive note which I think was the reason Radar Roy hosts this board. Just expressing my thoughts and opinions. I would welcome your comments. Thanks.
Hey Craig,
Do you know what the wonderful thing about the Internet is..?
If you do a little research, you can find other biased, twisting of
the facts, and as this article states uneducated radar test reviews.
Even though this dates back to 1995. I just couldn't help myself
but post this link. I see a lot similarities between your reviews
back then and now. Oh, one more thing. After reading this thread
is just one more reason why I like to read radar test from the
GOL. They have no hidden agenda! Anyhow, have a good day!
Sincerely,
Bob
P.S. It's the sixth question from the top.
www.boostaholic.com/maxima/maxfaqs/misc.html
I think it would be pretty funny if Craig posted his phone number or some way of contacting him in person just to see how many of these people who are so quick to hide behind their keyboards and computer screens and take pot-shots at CP are actually man enough to say these things to him in person. Seriously, Cactusman was right, yall are just being childish and insecure. I'm not defending Craig here mind you, but you will notice I havent attacked him either because unless I have a way of meeting him in person Im not gonna sit here shielded from the world and take shots at his reputation until I know the man and the face Im talking about. Yall are all basing your opinions off of a few assumptions, a magazine review, and a few posts by someone we think is actually CP, get a life.
just my .02 Im a people person, its just my style, sorry if I ruffled a few feathers, I tried pretty hard to speak in generalizations so as not to be a hypcrite myself...
X2
I regret wasting so much time with my previous posts. After reading the link Astro posted, (www.boostaholic.com/maxima/maxfaqs/misc.html), we see that CP has a long-documented history of his anti-V1 bias. If CP really was a former employee of BEL as the site states, now we know one more reason why. Texan I really suggest you read this if you haven't.
Just a friendly reminder... and no hard feelings whatsoever... but if CP can sit behind his keyboard and publicly smear the product of a man he personally doesn't like, then why should those like me be questioned when we sit behind a keyboard and smear his product. Is it different because his "product" is a public presentation of his thoughts and not a tangible item. I mean, if CP had a company that made detectors, and I had the same "qualifications" and training as CP, and called myself an expert, and I got paid to write articles that were supposed to be about testing detectors... but I held a grudge against CP for some reason.... would it be ok for me to print false statements about his detector and discourage potential buyers from buying his product every chance I got? No, that wouldn't be morally right. If I were to meet CP, I think it would be ok for me to look him in the eye and say he lied in his article about V1, if I could prove it. For that, I would had to have been there to see the testing, and I wasn't. Nor was anyone else allowed to witness his results- except for his helper.
To some extent, I think Mike Valentine could have some grounds to get a cease and desist order against CP for causing a loss of revenue with false statements like "no programmable features". I guess MV would have to prove some sort of loss, but I think such legal action would get CP's attention. I also think MV is smart enough to stay away from this guy. No sense in rasslin' with the hog- you'll just get dirty.
As far as the name calling.. it's not mature, but hey, this is an internet forum. Nobody's required have high character here. 8) If he cant take the heat.....
Jim
To some extent, I think Mike Valentine could have some grounds to get a cease and desist order against CP for causing a loss of revenue with false statements like "no programmable features". I guess MV would have to prove some sort of loss, but I think such legal action would get CP's attention. I also think MV is smart enough to stay away from this guy. No sense in rasslin' with the hog- you'll just get dirty.
Arr thing is I said that very same thing to Mike V when he answered my call (on the Free call number!) He pretty much said he's had it for a decade now and he's not bothered by it at all. Then he started talking about CP as in this guy came to me......... See Craig I got the inside story on you buddy from the horses mouth, all i can say is you better get in the GOL boy's or your gonna be brown bread. Oh and if you come at me with sitting be hide a key board crap I'm real happy to bring a ladder for ya so I can say it to ya face :wink:
PS. I drive around 65 000 mile per year with my V1 and dude you really have no Idea (or do ya?). Today I got a 10 k/6.2 mile Ka alert in light rain, heavy traffic. The V1 never stops amazing me. I also love how you feel that you need to defend your lies to the geeks I tell ya this is not gonna be good for your cash flow next test as this forum is bigger than you now
I also can't understand how bell would back ya I was thinking with your hot little temper you would be a real liability. Guess after I send them this link they will able to see that more clearly.
Have a nice day Jesus loves ya!!!
Story from the (Bob) link provided:
www.boostaholic.com/maxima/maxfaqs/misc.html
-Suf Daddy
-----------------------CONTENT BELOW: --------------
Q: Which radar detector is the best?
A: Courtesy of Steve Cutchen:
Overall the Bell won a shootout test against the Cobra RDL-712SW, Escort Passport 4600, Uniden LRD6399SW, Valentine One, and Whistler 1470. Test was done by Automobile Magazine late in 1995. So is it the best detector???
Craig Peterson, the "editor" that wrote the Automobile detector "review" is a former employee of Bel. He is not a regular editor of Automobile magazine. His article is a biased, uneducated report. See Mike Valentine's response attached below for the details of the biases. Bel placed an advertisement bragging about winning opposite the last page of the article. Interesting timing... .
When I complained to her, Jean Lindamood, Deputy Editor, wrote to me (I deleted her address from the following repost):
>Date: 19 Dec 95 10:12:27 EST
>From: jean Lindamood <>
>To: Steve Cutchen Subject: Re: Bias against
>Valentine?!?
>Steve, thanks for the time you took to send your thoughful letter. As you
>might expect, the Craig Peterson piece has whipped up a storm of protest,
>mostly from Valentine. We stand behind Craig, but we are investigating all
>complaints, charges, and countercharges in depth, and will deal with the
whole
>matter in print. I truly appreciate your input. --Jean
Automobile posted a gutless, empty rebuttal, which Mike refers to in his email to me, below.
I believe their response to the subsequent criticism lends credibility to the claim that this "review" was an embarassment for Automobile magazine.
Here is the email from Mike Valentine to me, including the text of Mike Valentine's rebuttal to the inaccuracies and biases of Petersons "test". I've followed it with a repost of a usenet debate between Craig Peterson and Csabe Csere of Car and Driver
----begin Valentine repost----
Hi again Steve!
Re Automobile Magazine replies: What you have read in the magazine is the sum total of any public replies about the December '95 review by Mr. Peterson.
After I read the Craig Peterson rebuttal to the NOT PRINTED letters and e-mail about the review, I called Jean Lindamood concerning her e-mail statement to you (which you posted to rec.autos.driving) about resolving the issue in print. She only hemmed and hawed around and said that the letters column response was all that there would be about it printed in the magazine.
A V1 owner called to report that he had started a discussion thread about the article on Compuserve (that generated 30 or 40 replies) that was mysteriously eliminated before it got any bigger. Who knows why?
Anyway, I am attaching the "Top 20" discussion for your amusement. It is a public document that you may redistribute as long as you don't modify it.
Thanks for your interest.
Cordially,
Mike Valentine
Valentine Research, Inc.
Content-ID: <0_22195_835113417@emout13.mail.aol.com.206183> Content-type: text/plain; name="TOP20.TXT"
The Top 20 Reasons to be Concerned about Craig Peterson's December '95 Automobile Radar Detector Test.
1) Mr. Peterson writes [Re: changes in technology]: "... making the nearly four-year-old Valentine rather antediluvian in comparison".
Mr. Peterson's description of the Valentine One ignores continuous improvements since its introduction, including widening Ka-band coverage from 1 GHz to 2.6 GHz and the addition of the laser option. Further, older units purchased without these advances were eligible to have them added through an upgrade program -- the only such program in the industry.
The Valentine Research philosophy is one of continuous improvement and upgrade instead of continuous model change and obsolescence. We think planned-obsolescence is "antediluvian".
2) Mr. Peterson says he "devised" some radar tests in a "cost-no-object shootout".
His radar tests were "devised" in such a way that the K-band straightaway "shootout" ended in a tie when the test ran out of room. This is like testing sports cars for top speed using a speedometer limited to 85 MPH. A Yugo and a Ferrari would both top out at 85.
Car and Driver has tested Valentine One for K-band range in the October '92, April '94 and September '95 issues and found it vastly superior to other makes of detectors.
When tests are "devised" that hide major differences in performance, the author's opinion becomes more important than the objective qualities of the detectors being tested.
3) Mr. Peterson writes [Re: Passport 4600]: "And audio alerts arrived with fully 90 decibels of authority, a whopping 10 decibels louder than the Valentine."
This claim is just plain wrong. We measured a Passport 4600 and a Valentine One with a Bruel & Kjaer Model 2230 precision integrating sound level meter and a Kustom Falcon radar gun. The Valentine One measured 90 decibels and the Passport measured 84 decibels. The Valentine One is 6 decibels louder, not "a whopping 10 decibels" weaker than the Passport 4600.
This is "a whopping" 16 decibels of error. It is easy to hear that the Valentine One is louder by ear, without a sound pressure meter.
4) Mr. Peterson writes [Re: Passport 4600]: "In the straightaway test in city mode it blew away all the others against X-band radar, registering more than two and a half miles of detection range, a useful 8000-foot margin over the Valentine, placed in its second [Advanced] logic mode."
This comparison leaves out a critical point. The Passport 4600 has no city mode! Therefore, the Passport had to be tested in its only mode -- the equivalent of highway mode. No wonder it did as well in the "city-mode" test as in the X-band "highway" test. It also tied for last place in the "urban loop" X-band false-alarm test.
5) Mr. Peterson writes [Re: Uniden LRD6399SW]: "Uniden's city-mode alarm strategy is not to chop sensitivity, as do its competitors. Instead, the audio alerts stay mute until the third of five LEDs comes alive, denoting a much closer proximity to the radar. ... We'd advise you to keep a sharp eye on the Uniden while driving in town lest the silent flashing LED go unnoticed until it's too late."
These statements contradict themselves. If the sensitivity is not "chopped", why would one be required to "keep a sharp eye" on the unit lest it become too late? In the X-band city-mode straightaway test, the Uniden is given full credit for the range obtained by watching for the "silent flashing LED" instead of waiting for an audio alarm. Why?
Mr. Peterson is not as lenient toward the Valentine One. If he had used the Logic mode (instead of Advanced Logic) in the city-mode X-band straightaway test, and if he had followed the procedure allowed for the Uniden, the Valentine One would have walked away from the entire field.
As can be seen from the X-band graphs, Valentine One's Advanced Logic mode (Peterson calls it "city") performance is the general equal of the highway mode performance of the 1st ranked B.E.L. and second ranked Uniden.
6) Mr. Peterson writes [Re: Uniden LRD6399SW]: "In town the Uniden squawked but one false alarm -- an X-band -- making it the second quietest unit tested."
Notice the use of the term "squawked" to indicate reception of the false alarm. Apparently there was no need to "keep a sharp eye on the Uniden while driving in town" while rating its false alarm performance in the "urban loop". How many times did the "silent flashing LED" indicate a false alarm without making a noise?
Mr. Peterson has chosen to use visual indication which makes the "city-mode" range test higher for the Uniden. He then chose audio indication for the "urban loop" false-alarm test which makes performance look better than would visual indication. Why?
Mr. Peterson says the Uniden is "the second quietest unit tested". The B.E.L. also received "but one false alarm -- an X-band". How can a unit with the identical score be ranked second to the B.E.L.?
7) Mr. Peterson writes: "... unlike lower-cost models from the competition, the Valentine does not offer features many consumers now take for granted, including auto mute, a Safety Radar warning system, a dim/dark switch, and visual band identification (save a small LED to denote Ka-band radar)."
Notice the use of the phrase "features many consumers now take for granted". Poor, deprived consumers they are if they take these features for granted! The Valentine One would have to stoop to offer such features.
8) "many consumers now take for granted" - Auto-mute
Auto-mute is a Band-Aid for the fear of using "city" mode in earlier detectors. "City" weakens X-band sensitivity. Everyone I know is afraid to use "city" because it might get left "on" by mistake when they leave town.
Auto-mute makes leaving a detector in the "highway" mode less irritating in town. It still falses for every shopping center and bank, but it shuts up a few seconds later. The catch is it shuts up for real radar too! That makes real radar and most false alarms sound alike. Good luck to those who now take this system for granted. What if you don't hear it before it mutes? What if a real radar lays in wait after the sound quits? The only solution is to watch the detector instead of watching the road.
Today the Valentine One offers two computer modes that offer much more intelligence than any "city" mode "desensitivity" switch. Our logic modes are like having a good secretary screen your calls. You don't miss any important calls, but you don't have to answer every one yourself.
9) "many consumers now take for granted" - Safety Radar
How can consumers take Safety Radar for granted when not a single transmitter has ever been sold? As an operating system, it exists only in detector advertisements.
Safety Radar is an invention of other radar detector manufacturers. It is designed to add a driving safety benefit to detectors so that lawmakers can no longer argue that they are simply the highway equivalent of burglar tools.
Mr. Peterson is helping Cobra sell the Safety Alert system to interested parties through a promotional video he produced. He doesn't mention this in his Automobile review.
Mr. Peterson also doesn't mention that the Valentine One interprets Safety Alert signals as a K-band alarm with a "2" in the bogey counter, an indication rarely seen otherwise.
Neither does he mention that the Valentine One is the only detector capable of telling from which direction a Safety Alert transmitter is approaching!
Every Valentine One ever made will accurately locate a Safety Alert transmitter. Is this what Mr. Peterson means when he calls it "antediluvian"?
10) "many consumers now take for granted" - dim/dark switch
This reference ignores a superior feature that low-cost detectors don't offer. The Valentine One has a photoelectrically-controlled automatic light dimmer. Low-cost detectors omit this feature due to the expense of the extra circuitry. Even if "many consumers now take for granted" a poor dimming solution through lack of alternative, that is no justification to down-grade a superior feature.
"Dark" switches aren't really dark. They all leave the pilot-light on. Who really thinks that an LED shining from a sun-visor is not a radar detector? A true "low-profile nighttime operation" solution in a "cost-no-object shootout" wouldn't be a half-measure.
Mr. Peterson fails to mention an accessory to the Valentine One that offers superior nighttime stealth: the Concealed Display. This private display module may be located in the car where the driver can see it without prying eyes being any the wiser.
11) "many consumers now take for granted" - Visual band indicators Visual band indicators are a Band-Aid for lousy audio warnings. Low-cost detectors have a reputation for their audio warnings all sounding alike. Instead of improving the sound, they ask you to take your eyes off the road, and look at miniature icons. Mr. Peterson writes: "The 745STi's audio alerts are not as distinct as the others but are fortuitously backed up by large, differently colored icons that are impossible to misinterpret."
I have believed in distinctly different sounds for the different bands since the first Escort, have never given up on them, and Valentine One comes fully equipped.
12) Mr. Peterson writes: "The wider the field of view, the better the chance your detector will see the light beam when it's targeting someone up ahead, even if the target car is in another lane."
This "field of view" test is concerned with the laser gun's field of view, not the detector's. Car and Driver has a similar test using two-by-fours and saw-horses to test for off-the-axis of the laser-gun performance of laser detectors.
Valentine One scores a first place in Mr. Peterson's "field of view" test as well as first place in two different Car and Driver off-axis "saw-horse" sensitivity tests.
B.E.L. scores a last-place sixth in Mr. Peterson's "field of view" test and a third out of five and fourth out of six in the two Car and Driver "saw-horse" tests.
13) Mr. Peterson then writes [Re: Valentine One]: "Against lasers it achieved the widest field of view but trailed the leading BEL in seeing a laser beam striking a car ahead, potentially the difference between cruising past the danger or having a gent in a bear hat asking for your license and registration."
This statement contradicts his own definition of why he performed his "field of view" test. Why does the last-place finisher in a test that is said to predict performance in "targeting someone up ahead" beat all comers in "seeing a laser beam striking a car ahead"?
The first place ranking of Valentine One is not a fluke and neither is a bottom-half ranking of BEL in off-laser-gun-axis performance tests. What is truly odd is the magical improvement of the BEL unit in the "seeing a laser beam striking a car ahead" test from dead-last to first place.
14) Mr. Peterson writes: "Save for the Valentine unit, all offer front and rear laser detection --"
What is the point of singling out the Valentine One when the Cobra RDL-712SW has no rear laser detection feature either? This is particularly strange when Mr. Peterson has written three articles in three separate magazines where he counsels putting no faith in rear laser detection.
15) Mr. Peterson writes [Re: Valentine One direction-finding]: "... we circled the car slowly carrying a handheld K-15 X-band radar. ... If the radar is more than about 30 degrees to the side, the detector becomes confused, often progressively lighting up arrows in three different quadrants." vWhen was the last time you were circled, at point-blank range, by a police radar while driving down the road? Mr. Peterson devised this unusual test that found fault with the radar locator. In the real world, many thousands of happy customers confirm that direction-finding has tremendous value. Our customer surveys tell us that the radar locator is the number one reason that customers are glad they bought a Valentine One. Ninety-seven percent of our customers would recommend a Valentine One to a friend.
Mr. Peterson has a long history of criticizing the radar locator. In publications ranging from Automobile Magazine to Car Audio & Electronics, The (Mercedes-Benz) Star, and Corvette Fever, he has repeatedly expressed his displeasure with the Valentine One's direction-finding. Frank Barrett, the editor of The Star, was moved to interject in a Craig Peterson review: "It's the only detector that warns you not only that radar is present but where it is - ahead, behind, or to the side. After you've seen that feature in action, you won't want to drive without it."
Why would Mr. Peterson repeatedly fault, but our customers enthusiastically endorse, the same feature? Valentine One is the only detector available with radar location. The radar locator is patented (U.S. Patents 5,083,129 & 5,151,701). Mr. Peterson has approached Valentine Research to pay him as a consultant and has been turned down each time. Would other manufacturers complain if the radar locator is portrayed as a gimmick?
16) Mr. Peterson: "We're beginning to wonder if our tests will be perennial BEL benefits."
This is great anticipation of a question readers might have. Consider the following:
17) Mr. Peterson writes [Re: BEL]: "Its X-band scores rated only a third, two fifths, and a sixth ..."
But he says he will "forgive BEL for paying more heed to K and Ka, the two frequencies that will be most common in police radar within a few years." X-band is the most important radar band of all time. Perhaps his radar-gun clients have big plans for the future of K and Ka, but Ohio recently bought hundreds of new X-band antennae for the Highway Patrol. Of course, Valentine One was the stand-out performer on X-band. A coincidence? Valentine Research is not one of Mr. Peterson's clients.
18) Mr. Peterson writes: "The BEL's laser scores led the field in the crucial ability to see a distant laser beam working traffic up ahead, which, in the real world, is your only hope of avoiding a laser trap."
This is a curious statement. The BEL unit's "laser scores" were last and first, even though both tests purported to have the same goals. The Valentine One's "laser scores" were first and second, surely higher than the BEL's totals. What kind of math is being used here? A coincidence? Valentine Research is not one of Mr. Peterson's clients
19) Mr. Peterson writes: "Once again, BEL has demonstrated the ability to generate superior sensitivity without incurring the penalty of excessive urban falses. On our urban loop it uttered only one false alarm [X-band], and that's a remarkable performance in microwave-saturated Denver."
This praise is heaped upon a unit that scored "a third, two fifths, and a sixth" on the X-band performance tests. Is this "superior sensitivity" on X-band? Making X-band deliberately weak to reduce false alarms is courting disaster. There is nothing "remarkable" about having poor X-band performance. 1975 Fuzzbusters had it too.
20) Mr. Peterson writes: "BEL has paid attention to the details, creating an elegant windshield mount that can be adjusted and set with a screwdriver."
Elegant? In order to change cars with this mount, one must resort to hand tools?
I rest my case.
Mike Valentine
President, Valentine Research, Inc.
Member, Society of Automotive Engineers
Life Member, Association of Old Crows
Named one of the "Ten Best Friends of the Automobile" by Car and Driver Magazine
----end Valentine's repost----
In the following usenet debate between Craig Peterson and Csabe Csere, Peterson claims that car magazine folk always feed at the trough of their advertisers and that Car and Driver's detector tests are also biased. Here's what Csaba Csere had to say about it. (the quoted text in the repost is from Peterson):
---begin repost of Csaba's post---
Apparently Mr. Peterson believes that he can make himself appear cleaner by spreading the muck around. Unfortunately, his observations about Car and Driver are at variation with the facts.
>But don't get the impression few automotive journalists consult or
>otherwise engage in commerce with automotive-related companies. Low pay
>has always encouraged auto writers to accept outside jobs as a matter of
>survival. Car & Driver, for example, whose detector reviews are accepted
>as gospel by many, piously claim their staffers have no allegiances to
>companies whose products they test. But they neglect to mention their
>long tradition of feeding at the manufacturers' trough even as they test
>these same manufacturers' cars. A 1990 front page Wall Street Journal
>story scrutinized C/D's penchant for double-dipping in great detail.
>I'll e-mail you a copy if you'd like.
The consulting activities referenced in that WSJ article were the residue from a previous Editor-in-Chief of Car and Driver, the one who is currently in charge of the auto magazine that publishes Mr. Peterson's efforts. As a result of that article, William Jeanes, who was then Car and Driver's editor, instituted a conflict of interest policy to prohibit such activities. Those writers, including me, who lost income because of the change, recieved compensatory salary increases. When I became Editor four years ago, I continued the no consulting policy, which is enforced to this day.
>Among those mentioned in the WSJ article was Patrick Bedard, their most
>senior editor, who has routinely consulted to auto manufacturers and who
>has been on the Valentine payroll since 1981. He drove Valentine's Indy
>car in two Indy 500s and is a close personal friend. Unlike me, Bedard
>works for only one detector manufacturer, Valentine, perhaps explaining
>why during this 16-year period no one but Valentine has ever won a
>detector test. Meanwhile Bedard dutifully cranks out stories praising
>Valentine and C/D names him as one of the "Ten Best Friends of the
>Automobile".
Mr. Peterson would do well to read those radar detector tests before criticizing them. None of them were written by Pat Bedard, nor has he participated in ANY radar detector tests during my tenure at Car and Driver, which dates back to October 1980. In fact, Bedard doesn't even live in Michigan, where the magazine is headquartered and where all of the radar detector tests are conducted.
Furthermore, even when consulting was allowed pre-1990, none of the authors of our radar detector tests (Don Sherman, Nicholas Bisson-Dath, and I) consulted for any of the detector manufacturers.
Nor is it true that Valentine associated detectors have won every Car and Driver test. A Uniden won our 1995 test of budget detectors. Another Uniden won our 1989 test. And a Cobra unit tied for the win in our 1987 test.
If this analysis of Car and Driver's radar detector tests is representative of Mr. Peterson's scrutiny and throughness, it is no surprise that his detector tests usually strike us as peculiar. Perhaps he would be well advised to refining his detector test procedures rather than attempting to deconstruct ours.
Csaba Csere
Editor-in-Chief
Car and Driver
---end repost of Csaba's---
--Steve
Very interesting post.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks