GOL RADAR SHOOTOUT TEST 1/28/06

**outrun** · 01-31-2006, 12:00 PM

I guess about a 100 bucks or so. I payed $200 something new about 2 years ago.

**StlouisX50** · 01-31-2006, 12:02 PM

I still think the test was very telling, however I'd like to see what each detector would do mounting them at the 3 different locations. May not make too much of a difference but you might be supprised. Like I said, "this test is a good basic test!"

**Obsidian** · 01-31-2006, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Coldrain

Thanks for the input with respect to the V1 and RX65. I have gone over the results of several tests and it seems that both models are very comparable when it comes to radar. KU band may be another story, but it's useless on this side of the Atlantic. I know I'm oversimplifying the issue somewhat, but the only real difference is the laser detection capabilities.

Do you use a laser jammer and need the best laser detection? If so, get a V1.

If laser jammers are illegal where you live and laser is not a priority, you're probably better off with an RX65.

Does anyone have an issue with either of those statements?

I'm going to purchase one of these detectors before the end of the day. Price isn't really an issue, so this may very well come down to a coin flip. I'm still leaning toward the RX65, but I'm open to suggestions in the mean time. Also, I'm assuming that if you order direct (or from an authorized seller like Roy in the case of the RX65) you will be getting the latest software revision.

I wasn't aware that there can be a performance discrepency between 2 identical RX65's due to manufacturing- this has me a little concerned.

I don't know if this will help you or not, but I ordered a V1 today, partly based on the results of the test. I have used an X50 since June 2004 (many really, but that's a long story). I was honestly hoping for a dominant victory by the STI or V1, but since that didn't happen my decision came down to history, upgradeabilty, and the loyalty the V1 guys have for their product. The 30 day trial is a no-brainer too. If I don't like it I can send it back.

Living in California with a cop magnet for a car and a serious lead foot, Ka, K and Laser are my top priorities. In this test the V1 performed well in Ka, dominated K and by all accounts is the superior Laser detector. In the 2005 test it was the clear and dominant winner on all bands.

The performance discrepancy with the Bel products does not surprise me in the least ... since they are they same makers of the X50, and I am 99.9% sure my latest X50 has no ability to pick up Ka band whatsoever. None, nada, zilch. Some of my previous X50's startled me with their Ka range ... so I'm a believer that Bel/Escort has possibly huge variances from one unit to another.

Time will tell, but I'm eagerly awaiting delivery of my V1 tomorrow.

If you are really that undecided though, why not get both the RX-65 and the V1 and send back the loser after 30 days?

-Obsidian-

**AirMoore** · 01-31-2006, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by spankyaf

Originally Posted by happya$$

One more thing. Next time we have a RADAR test we will keep the group as small as possible since control is so important especially with radar. We might not even announce it just so we can keep the group into a managable level. We will just post the results in a surprise manner.

Good idea.... I have to wonder the role of unseen environmental factors on the results and it also underlines the need for multiple runs spread at different times in the test.

I am not saying its not a great idea (and I thank you guys for all your hard work dont get me wrong)... but the only problem would be: Where are you going to get all the detectors from? You got detectors from sources outside a 'small group'.

Just like what happened with the results of the X50 in this test...only one was tested (in each category)...so it didn't test performance of X50's in general (because manufact. variance is an issue), instead what was tested was the performance of a single detector.
It was good to see at least two of each kind tested (V1, STi, RX65) so you could average it(detection) out and get the logical probable results from any certain model detector, without having to guess (is this just a 'good' RD of that model or a 'bad' RD of that model.)

Don't get me wrong HappyA$$ I am not trying to rip on the testing of course, you guys did an amazing job and I can't thank you enough (you even said its not really scientific, just unbiased)... and GOL is really one of the only places to find unbiased RD info... with that said I think you understand what I am saying?

**itisjustme** · 01-31-2006, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by AirMoore

Originally Posted by spankyaf

Originally Posted by happya$$

One more thing. Next time we have a RADAR test we will keep the group as small as possible since control is so important especially with radar. We might not even announce it just so we can keep the group into a managable level. We will just post the results in a surprise manner.

Good idea.... I have to wonder the role of unseen environmental factors on the results and it also underlines the need for multiple runs spread at different times in the test.

I am not saying its not a great idea (and I thank you guys for all your hard work dont get me wrong)... but the only problem would be: Where are you going to get all the detectors from? You got detectors from sources outside a 'small group'.

Just like what happened with the results of the X50 in this test...only one was tested (in each category)...so it didn't test performance of X50's in general (because manufact. variance is an issue), instead what was tested was the performance of a single detector.
It was good to see at least two of each kind tested (V1, STi, RX65) so you could average it(detection) out and get the logical probable results from any certain model detector, without having to guess (is this just a 'good' RD of that model or a 'bad' RD of that model.)

Don't get me wrong HappyA$$ I am not trying to rip on the testing of course, you guys did an amazing job and I can't thank you enough (you even said its not really scientific, just unbiased)... and GOL is really one of the only places to find unbiased RD info... with that said I think you understand what I am saying?

Well as for the X50 dont forget you can always refer to the prior test that the GOL team did also. Between the two tests I beleive there is great a volume of data for people to use to make an informed decision as to what detector will best for their situation.

**dx2995** · 01-31-2006, 03:19 PM

Was the V1 set to maxium sensitivity on Ka during the Test?

**o2bad455** · 01-31-2006, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by dx2995

Was the V1 set to maxium sensitivity on Ka during the Test?

Excellent question, especially considering that I've just been told that the Advanced Logic ("L") mode does add Ka filtering despite no mention of it in the manual. Were they tested in All Bogeys ("A") mode? Any other programming changes or all defaults?

**happya$$** · 01-31-2006, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by o2bad455

Originally Posted by dx2995

Was the V1 set to maxium sensitivity on Ka during the Test?

Excellent question, especially considering that I've just been told that the Advanced Logic ("L") mode does add Ka filtering despite no mention of it in the manual. Were they tested in All Bogeys ("A") mode? Any other programming changes or all defaults?

There is no such thing as advanced sensitivity on Ka on the V1. That setting is just for the urgency of LED's the V1 will give you. This is one of the biggest misconseptions about this setting!

**V1 Dave** · 01-31-2006, 03:45 PM

I was wondering about settings also, I always admired Car & Driver for testing filtered and non filtered modes.
According to the Car & Driver 02 test Ka actually performed better in a logic mode (filtered) with instant on by about .2 and only lost about .2 miles on a continuous radar mode.
http://valentine1.com/lab/cd_radar_detectors.pdf

**o2bad455** · 01-31-2006, 04:28 PM

Well, it's possible that I ended up speaking with the wrong person at VR, but the info I got was direct from "Joe" at VR when I called yesterday specifically to ask about the effects of logic modes and programming options on Ka.

Joe said, point blank, that Advanced Logic mode DOES add additional filtering to Ka band! We're NOT talking about option "5" here, which is just more LEDS faster.

In addition, I did notice a special programming option "6" that removes some Ka false filtering and might also increase range.

Originally Posted by happya$$

Originally Posted by o2bad455

Originally Posted by dx2995

Was the V1 set to maxium sensitivity on Ka during the Test?

Excellent question, especially considering that I've just been told that the Advanced Logic ("L") mode does add Ka filtering despite no mention of it in the manual. Were they tested in All Bogeys ("A") mode? Any other programming changes or all defaults?

There is no such thing as advanced sensitivity on Ka on the V1. That setting is just for the urgency of LED's the V1 will give you. This is one of the biggest misconseptions about this setting!