Difference between IO & QT

[dslrip32]

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...

[nine_c1]

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.

[STiMULi]

If you received it on a Belscort detector, it wasn't QT.

I define QT as any radar shot that is too fast for your detector to alert to it. That could be anywhere from a fraction of a second to several seconds long.

Ain't that the truth!

[YTCD]

That's pretty impressive, where was this done at?

[nine_c1]

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.

My testing was done on a bench with a Kustom 35.5 Ka Golden eagle and a stop watch.

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]

[KnightHawk]

If you received it on a Belscort detector, it wasn't QT.

I define QT as any radar shot that is too fast for your detector to alert to it. That could be anywhere from a fraction of a second to several seconds long.

Ain't that the truth!

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. Just messing with you SS. Seriously SS, how can you make good reasoning with your definition? I really don't get it.

[KnightHawk]

What that says is:

1. Quick trigger results in consistently accurate readings.

2. The RADAR unit itself computes what your "reasonable time" is to get an accurate reading, not you.

3. You do not have to trigger for any specific or prolonged period of time.

4. Quick trigger is not a factor in inaccurate readings.

5. All that is necessary to accompany your Quick Trigger readings is your visual estimation and audible tracking.

There you have it, folks. Straight from the authoritative source.

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.

[Stealth Stalker]

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. Just messing with you SS. Seriously SS, how can you make good reasoning with your definition? I really don't get it.

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.

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.

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.

[CJR238]

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.

[bigalinwv]

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.