I tried to make a new thread with all the information and proof gathered but the forum wont allow it. :mad: too long????
Did it: http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...tml#post708808
Printable View
I tried to make a new thread with all the information and proof gathered but the forum wont allow it. :mad: too long????
Did it: http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...tml#post708808
-
If any Officer wants to take a hand radar gun, pull the trigger to turn it on and then pull it again real fast to turn it off to get a quick reading, there is nothing wrong with that to defeat a possible RD if the Officer thinks one is being used buy the speeder. To me that is QT and is fair game.... :)
You need to change this to this:Quote:
QT though perceived as a specific technique to defeat RD's it has no additional risk than regular I/O under most circumstances.
"QT though perceived as a specific technique to defeat RD's it has no additional risk than regular I/O if you have a responsive RD such as the Valentine One."
:D You can even supplement your thread with a couple of my videos:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQsee1RrLAE]YouTube - Escort 9500ci and V1 3.813 vs. I/O Ka 35.5[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0OOhPcHdPc]YouTube - Escort 9500ci and V1 3.813 vs. Moving I/O Ka 34.7[/ame]
:lol::lol::lol: I guess a lot of TX DPS troopers as well as my locals are going to get fired.Quote:
In the end QT is not standard practice and any LEO using it unless otherwise stated specifically in your state is risking his job.
QT, I/O laser at close to point blank range weather its a V1 or cobra will make no difference. A LEO using QT is going to be more selective than most. When touting the V1 over other manufacturers it is focusing on maybe a 1% chance unless you live in a QT rich area like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopyc4
IMO you should do something about that. :D
Only if someone does something about it there. I know i would, but it is Texas. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by snoopyc4
I agree. It's just this statement is a little misleading:Quote:
QT, I/O laser at close to point blank range weather its a V1 or cobra will make no difference.
QT does pose an additional risk to non-V1 users. Because if you are heading towards a QT trap, you may not get any advance warning when the LEO targets a car that is ahead of you. My first video demonstrates this.Quote:
QT though perceived as a specific technique to defeat RD's it has no additional risk than regular I/O under most circumstances.
I really just wanted to state the QT parameters with out discussing specific RD's but im sure after a few responses ill add some detail to help people with QT in there area.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopyc4
It deepens if SS supports it or it becomes a Belscort vs V1 thread.
:D Alright, I'll stay out. I'm sure one of the other 150+ V1 zombies will barge in eventually though.Quote:
Originally Posted by CJR238
:cool: Maybe I should make a thread called "Tips and Tricks for Handling TX DPS QT".Quote:
but im sure after a few responses ill add some detail to help people with QT in there area.
Me and Quickcummins get Q/T all the time here in west Tx by DPSQuote:
Originally Posted by snoopyc4:D Alright, I'll stay out. I'm sure one of the other 150+ V1 zombies will barge in eventually though.Quote:
Originally Posted by CJR238
:cool: Maybe I should make a thread called "Tips and Tricks for Handling TX DPS QT".Quote:
but im sure after a few responses ill add some detail to help people with QT in there area.
If you make the thread strictly about the facts ofQuote:
Originally Posted by CJR238I really just wanted to state the QT parameters with out discussing specific RD's but im sure after a few responses ill add some detail to help people with QT in there area.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopyc4
It deepens if SS supports it or it becomes a Belscort vs V1 thread.
1. What we define quick trigger as
and
2. What detectors can pick up radar bursts of what duration on what bands
(The second backed up by testing videos if necessary)
Then we can have a argument free thread. You can't argue with facts. They can go debate about if Q/T is a threat elsewhere. (thats opinion at this point it seems not facts ;) )
Its up. :) Its all about the definition of QT, the facts as to its legal usage and likely hood of its use. Nothing about what does pick up QT or not just the basic facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by RiptideIf you make the thread strictly about the facts ofQuote:
Originally Posted by CJR238I really just wanted to state the QT parameters with out discussing specific RD's but im sure after a few responses ill add some detail to help people with QT in there area.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopyc4
It deepens if SS supports it or it becomes a Belscort vs V1 thread.
1. What we define quick trigger as
and
2. What detectors can pick up radar bursts of what duration on what bands
(The second backed up by testing videos if necessary)
Then we can have a argument free thread. You can't argue with facts. They can go debate about if Q/T is a threat elsewhere. (thats opinion at this point it seems not facts ;) )
http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...iscussion.html
snoopyc4, a "Tips and Tricks for Handling TX DPS QT" would be good. Figured i would ad the advantages of the V1's QT responce once some good responces are made.
x2 snoopyQuote:
Originally Posted by snoopyc4
Wish someone in TX would try and correct this travesty. :mad::p:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiahx2 snoopyQuote:
Originally Posted by snoopyc4
The LEOs are using it in the Eastern suburbs of St Paul Minnesota. (Washington County / Cottage Grove area) I got hit with IO IO (instant on, instant off) point blank in my truck at about 500 -700 ft going the PSL., no problem. Two days later I was hit twice in the same day in my Vette at a greater distance saved by a rabbit. In all three instances the Bel gave just one loud chirp.
First off stalker you hit the nail on the head, as far as this quick trigger argument all across this forum goes is a bunch of BS just another way of the zombies from BOTH company's tryingto prove that their detector is superior too one another. The plain and simple finish to this argument is that the V1 is the best raw performance detector.. in almost all means.. belscorts would rather increase quietness and process each and every signal to a tee... As far as the detectors go all of them need work.. they all suck at 35.5... Valentine needs a major overhaul...belscort needs to stop making all the decisions on what's best for us likethe national government is doing and let us choose whats right for us..
Both companies have their flaws, you just need to decide which one is right for you. Since I live in VA its an M3, if I lived in texas I'd have a V1, if I were richer I'd probably own a V1 to go along with my M3.Quote:
Originally Posted by YTCD
Well said Riptide.
And:
I agree the QT BS is just another way of the zombies from BOTH company's trying to prove that their detector is better than one another. Not one is perfect for everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by YTCD
As for the V1 being best performer. Its by no means the best raw performer, its not much better than a 9500ix and no where near my 9500ci in most cases and just as good with others. Plus non of my units other than the V1 struggle with 35.5.
However the V1 for its price is by far the best well rounded unit, it doesn't lean too much towards filtering or sensitivity and has a fast response some need.
I too wish the national government would let us choose what's right for us, the problem is most people aren't smart enough to know what's best for them. And for some reason some feel obligated to support them, give them the info they need, teach them then let them make there own decision. .
KIn means of the raw sensitivity I wasn't meaning performance I meant when it comes down to basics and raw detection the V1 is better, there's a big difference.. just like when it comes down to the raw performance of searching/processing a signal the Whistler's are far superior. Performance of all detectors is sub-par no matter which way you look at it. And No one detector is perfect even though the capabilities are there. That's the sad part. Practically a 9500CIR..a raw 9500ci would be perfect. . Raw detection, no filtering of signals.. just GPS location based filtering only, ka band segmentation, and a platform that is never to become obsolete. Which is another whole different argument and problem with belscort as well..Quote:
Originally Posted by RiptideBoth companies have their flaws, you just need to decide which one is right for you. Since I live in VA its an M3, if I lived in texas I'd have a V1, if I were richer I'd probably own a V1 to go along with my M3.Quote:
Originally Posted by YTCD
And as far as them moving away from quietness the redline is no quieter than my STI maybe a couple seconds at best when it comes down to a false radar source. The redline to me is just a tweaked m3, and another way of escort getting major bucks when all we really would need to do is send our current STI or same based detector in.
And your STIr does horrible at 35.5, mine running 35.5 only did an okay job. Yea it does alright most of the time i mean s*** my sti ive had 4 mile 35.5 detections but the question u have to ask yourself is does it do what u needed it to when you really needed it to.. when u have no rabbits or in which I come across the most.. when your traveling down a back road and the nearest car in front of you is a mile ahead and you have trees, off axis, terrain and I/O.. facing you.. is your STI-r doing what its expose to and alerting when he targets that car a mile in front of you.. even though the signal is present. Lets see I already know the answer to that.. no.
Valentine needs a MAJOR overhaul just like belscort does. But let me state what ure reasoning behind that statement was which im already aware of.. the thing that everyone is gonna throw in my face but I'm already competent of is that the V1 is a great detector and everything about it is upholding to the current aged detectors. Yes very true but Valentines not looking in the future.. they have the right idea but there in an anolog age in a digital world.. there detector needs to be completley remodeled in every area.. design, deminsions, digiality, technological, user interface, etc etc etc.. a lot of it they have right, especially the obsolescence factor.. just the way they go about it in some ways needs to be updated.. just a basic example of what i mean and getting to.. is instead of using the mail for just an update to the software use a computer to update it..
One point/advantqge that a v1 should be decided over any other detector but i rarely see it anymore used as a incentitive is that the V1 and the company behind it will never allow it to become obsolete..Valentine could fix their off axis problems and not change a tenth of there detector.. all we would have to do is send it off and a few days later get back what looks to be the same detector but ohh so different.. why do u think valentines are still around?
And they do make decisions, way more than Valentine does, they choose not to put ka segmentation on their detectors when its as simple as a software change but could and would make such a difference.. they choose to make our detectors quiet when it should be our decision how quiet they are and yet again would be as simple as a software change
Your trying to deflect what is ohh so obvious, I've been around and tested and used detectors for quite a while.. a lot less than several people on this forum and what I know is that the counter measure business has barely made any improvement and the measure business has made nothing but Improvment.
Yes not one is perfect for one person or one purpose/use for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by CJR238Well said Riptide.
And:
I agree the QT BS is just another way of the zombies from BOTH company's trying to prove that their detector is better than one another. Not one is perfect for everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by YTCD
As for the V1 being best performer. Its by no means the best raw performer, its not much better than a 9500ix and no where near my 9500ci in most cases and just as good with others. Plus non of my units other than the V1 struggle with 35.5.
However the V1 for its price is by far the best well rounded unit, it doesn't lean too much towards filtering or sensitivity and has a fast response some need.
I too wish the national government would let us choose what's right for us, the problem is most people aren't smart enough to know what's best for them. And for some reason some feel obligated to support them, give them the info they need, teach them then let them make there own decision. .
And by no means was I meaning that the Valentine was the best performer hahawhy do u think I had the 9500ci? I mean as far as detection, prssing, And interpreting signals.. the raw and basic part of a detector it is the best.
And the sad part about it is that people are missing the point of the reasoningbehind getting a high end detector. I meanshoot even a Whistler will do most of our everyday needs but the reason we get a high end is so that we are protected when we our in less than pleasing situations ie instant on.. no rabbits or targets in sight.. so basically picking up faint signals that are by no means not present and alerting them to us. But what I'm getting down to is how as a detector company are you going to put out a product that is very high end and ohh lets see 1600 dollars high end and allow it to not pick up instant on that is ohh so present
http://www.guysoflidar.com/radar-det...stant-on-1.gif
Yes i agree, my 9500ix did awesome for years no need for a $1600 unit. However there hasn't been an instance yet where my 9500i/ix's wouldn't have done a fine job. So far i have seen only small advantages of my V1 over my 9500i/ix's. As for I/O, I haven't missed one, yet. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by YTCDYes not one is perfect for one person or one purpose/use for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by CJR238Well said Riptide.
And:
I agree the QT BS is just another way of the zombies from BOTH company's trying to prove that their detector is better than one another. Not one is perfect for everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by YTCD
As for the V1 being best performer. Its by no means the best raw performer, its not much better than a 9500ix and no where near my 9500ci in most cases and just as good with others. Plus non of my units other than the V1 struggle with 35.5.
However the V1 for its price is by far the best well rounded unit, it doesn't lean too much towards filtering or sensitivity and has a fast response some need.
I too wish the national government would let us choose what's right for us, the problem is most people aren't smart enough to know what's best for them. And for some reason some feel obligated to support them, give them the info they need, teach them then let them make there own decision. .
And by no means was I meaning that the Valentine was the best performer hahawhy do u think I had the 9500ci? I mean as far as detection, prssing, And interpreting signals.. the raw and basic part of a detector it is the best.
And the sad part about it is that people are missing the point of the reasoningbehind getting a high end detector. I meanshoot even a Whistler will do most of our everyday needs but the reason we get a high end is so that we are protected when we our in less than pleasing situations ie instant on.. no rabbits or targets in sight.. so basically picking up faint signals that are by no means not present and alerting them to us. But what I'm getting down to is how as a detector company are you going to put out a product that is very high end and ohh lets see 1600 dollars high end and allow it to not pick up instant on that is ohh so present
With everything being said about this, the one thing that is a fact is ...... If you are the target when it comes to I/O or Q/T you are owned. But the satisfaction out of it at the very least, is the device on your windshield, or in your grill as far as a remote mount, had better alert to this. This is the reason I switched to the V1. It is great right out of the box for this, and if it is a serious threat, it can be programmed to be even better, (ka guard off, example)... I would probably still own an Escort if it could be programmed by the end user to "suit our needs", instead of it being chosen for us...;)
YCTD,
Check out these numbers from lab testing done on a version 3.826 V1 in the lab.
Valentine Research V1 Test 02/07/06
Rev 3.826
Factory Preset is POP ON
X -118 WOW
Ku -111 (default is OFF)
K -121 Responded 100% at time intervals above 100ms
33.8 -112 80% at 67ms, 100% from 100 to 200ms, 20 to 80% from 300ms to 600ms, 100% above 700ms
34.3 -115 0% below 500ms, 50% from 500 to 600ms, 100% above 700ms.
34.7 -115 0% below 300ms, 50% from 300 to 600ms, 100% above 700ms
35.5 -113 0% below 300ms, 50% from 300 to 700ms, 100% above 800ms.
These times were based upon 10 tries at each interval of 100ms from 100ms up thru 1 sec.
POP OFF
K -121 Responded 100% above 200ms.
33.8 -112 Responded 100% above 600ms.
34.3 -115 Responded 100% above 700ms.
34.7 -115 Responded 100% above 400ms.
35.5 -113 Responded 100% above 400ms.
Unit would sometimes alert at bursts less than the above during POP OFF mode but not consistently enough.
POP attempts with POP ON. 10 random tries at intervals of 10 seconds or more
33.8
67ms 80%
100ms 100%
200ms 100%
300ms 70%
400ms 50%
500ms 20%
600ms 80%
700ms 100%
800ms 100%
900ms 100%
1 sec 100%
K Band
67ms 90%
100ms 100%
200ms 100%
300ms 100%
400ms 100%
500ms 100%
600ms 100%
700ms 100%
800ms 100%
900ms 100%
1 sec 100%
Not nearly as impressive as the results aquired in the recent GOL tests. For instance, 50% from 300ms to 600ms on 34.7 Ka in POP mode and 50% on 35.5 Ka from 300ms to 700ms.
Here are the results I had with a RedLine on 35.5 Ka. Notice that the RedLine averaged 48% between 300ms and 700ms.
Ka-Band (35.5)
I ran an extra set with Ka-Band that I did not alternate with K-Band shots just to see if the Ka results this time around were consistant with results in my prior testing......which in fact it appears to be.
Set One Set Two Set Three Set Four Set Five (Not alt w/K-Band)
.19 N .32 Y .48 Y .58 Y .60 Y
.19 N .38 N .46 N .59 Y .66 N
.18 N .38 Y .46 Y .59 Y .63 Y
.19 N .34 N .44 N .59 N .60 Y
.18 N .35 Y .44 N .56 Y .65 Y
.20 N .32 N .47 N .59 N .60 N
.22 N .38 N .48 Y .56 N .62 Y
.19 N .34 N .43 N .59 N .63 Y
.22 N .38 N .45 N .57 N .65 N
.20 N .37 N .46 Y .55 Y .69 Y
0% 30% 40% 50% 70%
Until someone runs a detailed test as above with a 3.872 version V1 (with at least 10 pulls at 100ms intervals) I would not feel impervious to QT with a V1 just yet.
I can get consistent readings at just 250ms with my 35.5 Ka Kustom unit.;)
Ain't that the truth!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker
That's pretty impressive, where was this done at?
The V1 tests were done in a lab environment with better equipment than what I had, which is why the increments in that test were able to held at exactly 100 ms intervals.Quote:
Originally Posted by YTCD
My testing was done on a bench with a Kustom 35.5 Ka Golden eagle and a stop watch.:p
The Target time aquistion testing, for the Kustom unit, was done on a side street with the same radar and stopwatch.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkxFYBWZqNA"]YouTube - Kustom Golden Eagle QT's[/ame]
If you squeeze the trigger as defined by Stealth Stalker for several seconds, it ain't QT anymore. It's called LaggingTrigger. The newest term around the block just pop out today. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol: Just messing with you SS. ;) Seriously SS, how can you make good reasoning with your definition? I really don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by STiMULiAin't that the truth!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker
This is a glass half full half empty. Relying 100% on the radar unit is not full proof. Let me state an example that I can dispute Stalker- Applied Concepts claim about their strongest and fastest reading anytime and over and over again. In this example, I can clock the fastest speed in the strongest window and the slowest speed in the fastest window even if the unit was calibrated and completed 1 minute before the test. How can this be? Is this a technology gone wrong? No. It's simply because the unit alone cannot cover all the physics required to get an accurate reading as in this case. Stalker makes you believe that the technology is accurate all the time. But in reality, it can also be an error. I can get this reading with their DSR 2X, DSR, stalker dual, ATR and their stalker ll. To believe solely in the radar unit's reading is not substantial unless other factors are put in place or weighed in. What I'm saying is that, the above can be true and it can also be an error too. Bottom line, relying 100% on the radar equipment cannot stand alone and it is by no means a key to lock or seal the box.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker
LOL! You make the same point that I attempted to make, which is that you really can't put a hard and fast time definition on QT, because the people doing it are, well... people, whose timing is not perfect. Any definition of QT that attempts to put a solid number on it falls short. I've had detectors -- including V1s -- take three or four seconds to alert to a trigger pull. There are more factors to consider than the radar source itself. You also have to consider where in the frequency scan cycle the RD is when the trigger is pulled.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightHawk
Again we agree. You won't catch me saying that any technology is infallible. My previous comment was only a summary of what the "manual" says, which is all we were discussing.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightHawk
I guess the only answer is to run 2 RD's at the same time that don't interfere. Remote M3 & V1. At least one of them have a better chance at scanning the frequency being shot.
I think one HUGE point never discussed is that a LEO using QT is more than likely going to be using in a I/O scenario. Meaning you STILL may not have a chance anyway. Not taking up for Belscort's downside, but surely a "sneaky" LEO is going to be, well, sneaky. There are a few vids on YouTube and encounters on here that have said/shown the exact same thing.
LOL. Now your saying QT is IO, CO and all of the above. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker
Here you go SS. ;) Any proof on your side with regards to your QT's?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker"Recommended" by whom? Dude, you can't keep spouting this made-up propaganda until you find us a credible technical or LE source, in writing, that backs it up. If this is just your personal opinion of how LEOs ought to operate, then admit it to everyone. If you have an authoritative source that PROVES that IO shots are officially recommended to be greater than 3 seconds, we need to see it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by CJR238
"MTAM" page 27.
"The radar officer is on patrol on a four lane divided
expressway (65 mph max.) using moving mode radar with Standby (RF
Hold) switch in the off position. A medium size vehicle approaches from
the opposite direction, catching up with and beginning to pass another
medium size vehicle. The officer visually estimates the target vehicle
speed to be 80 mph and turns the Standby (RF Hold) switch “on”. A strong
audio tone consistent with the estimated 80 speed is heard and a reading
of 81 appears in the target window. Immediately thereafter the officer
observes the front of the target vehicle dip abruptly, the vehicle appears to
brake abruptly, the audio drops quickly and the reading in the target
display window drops rapidly from 81 to 65. The patrol window displays
63 and the calibrated speedometer reads 63. The officer notes the obvious
visual deceleration of the target vehicle corresponding exactly with the
drop in audio and target display window read-out and concludes that the
radar was tracking the target vehicle and not the other vehicle. Target
identification is complete and the officer can take enforcement action."
"The operator must track the target vehicle as long as possible
to be certain of a valid target identification" Page 13
"It is also necessary that the tracking of the target vehicle take place over a
reasonable amount of time, so the operator knows it is not a spurious reading." Page 26
I will have to delete what's quoted here in the next 48 hrs. If you need it later, just let me know.
I'm saying that any of the above can be misinterpreted as QT. If you're not the one pulling the trigger, then you really have no way of knowing. All you have to go on is your RD's alert, which is not always an accurate reflection of how long the shot was. If the officer pulls a five second shot on you, and your detector only gives a quick beep, then that's QT, as far as you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightHawk
Proof of what? :hmmmm2:Quote:
Here you go SS. ;) Any proof on your side with regards to your QT's?
I see what you mean. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth StalkerI'm saying that any of the above can be misinterpreted as QT. If you're not the one pulling the trigger, then you really have no way of knowing. All you have to go on is your RD's alert, which is not always an accurate reflection of how long the shot was. If the officer pulls a five second shot on you, and your detector only gives a quick beep, then that's QT, as far as you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightHawk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knighthawk
Proof about use of your QT claims and use of radar time frame that's all around this forum other than your authoritative source.Quote:
Proof of what? :hmmmm2:
I haven't made any claims of time frames for QT. In fact, I've been saying that you can't realistically pin it down to any particular time frame. Any number we apply to it, like 1 second or less, is just arbitrary and may not accurately represent actual practice.
I'm talking about this post above. Because even when you and GOL tested the escort products, most of escort's product detected short burst of radar from half a second to a second. So you know very well from controlled testing what the possible time frames are. Correct me if I'm wrong. Your statement is telling me that what is written in bold letter is a lie about QT. This is what I was trying to drive at for you to show proof that it is a lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker
RD users made up the term Q/T.... THEREFORE RD users get to define what it means
I don't care what others definition is. I care about a specific RD user's definition, how he preaches it and his beliefs about it. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Riptide
We've already established all of that, so I'm not sure exactly what you're trolling for here.
I was responding to RipTide's post and look who's talking about trolling. I'm sorry SS but you have not established it all not even once since you registered as a member here. All your statements are from quote your "authoritative source" without reference or any useful links to back it up. You have not given any proof about your accusation based on my request from you in post # 75.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker
Prove it and post a link or reference.
The definition of QT is subjective on this forum. I'm not sure why you are asking SS to back up his claims. We might as well ask any of us who define quick trigger in any way to back up our claims as well. :confused: