Printable View
Thank you. I have "been around" radar detectors for quite a while and have owned three from Cincinatti Microwave and currently own two from Valentine Research.
As noted in my OP, I am looking for research results that cannot be construed as linked to a commercial source that has a vested interest. Though the motives may be (probably are) clear and pure, there is always that lingering question. Where does GOL get detectors not supplied by the commercial sponsor? Do they buy them?
GOL has several commercial sponsors. They also use their own varied array of personal use rd's. In this day and age you need all the help you can get.
GOL do seem to do a very good test, but I do have some questions.
Keep in mind I am at work right now, so just had time to glance at one of the reviews rather than read in detail. (But have read some of the older reviews years back) Forgive me if some of my below info was covered and I didn't see it........
--------------------
In their testing I see it says "Each detector was tested with factory default settings,...." (Is the KA Guard off a V1 factory setting? Asking as I do not own a V1.....YET)
Doesn't some of the Bel/Escorts reduce sensitivity when on its "Auto" mode (Factory Default?)? If so were they going the correct speed for maximum sensitivity?
Doesn't the RX65 have a USA mode setting that should be tested (I think they did test this at one time)
Do they do tests with "optimal" settings as I assume in both the V1 and Belscorts (and others) there are better settings for sensitivity then the defaults? (kind of like a tv. it never looks as good until you tweak the colors, and most reviews are done after that tweaking and then tested;-)
Is selectivity covered very often as I had a Whistler that wouldn't shut up, and I got to the point where I just started ignoring it, and several times rolled down the window and started my wind-up to throw it out before I realized each time that I could just sell the dang thing (ended up bartering for a Uniden....Hey, it was a long time ago I have grown since then;-)
Some radar detectors fit people differently. Is this addressed? Ex. If you live in an area with Cameras everywhere won't the GPS feature be usefull? Are you in the city with 90% of your driving in an urban setting? Do your LEOs use QT/IO?
I see they use different revisions of the V1, are different revisions of the Whistlers, Belscorts, Cobras, etc tested this way as well.
I am not new to radar detectors, and have been on these forums some in the past, so forgive me if much of this has been discused and discounted. As you guys are the experts here, and most seem to have great information.
I just realized I stated that I did not read the full review in detail, but did do a quick scan due to timing, but the lenght of time it took me to type this I could have read the review twice;-).
Yes me threeQuote:
Originally Posted by djrams80
I couldn't possibly agree more with this statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by AirMoore
The best tests are ones that an individual performs in their environment out in the real world, in their daily commute. GOL tests should be one of the tools used. In fact there are many resources out there. Read them all and it should be obvious what makes sense and what does not. Compare those tests with your own real-world world tests and draw your conclusions. Some of my own favorite tools that I use are forum members tests, GOL tests, and my own real-world world tests, then I make my final decision. In all honesty though, my research always leads me back to the V1. We started GOL because we seeked the truth. Formula is very simple, do it for the love and do it honestly. We have made many mistakes along the way and we try to learn from them.
My sentiments exactly. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by happya$$
GOL gives the most well rounded amount of information available. Add that to others opinions, research and testing along with your own and you will have all the information needed.
Though my research always leads me back to running as many countermeasures as possible, not just one. :evil:
There were more posted at one point, but KaPro is correct you should not be "disturbed" to see a group such as GOL, being sponsored by retailers who are official retailers for the rd manufacturers. This stuff is expensive and everyone needs a little help every once in a while. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ben721364
Who can only run just one? :crazy_pilot:Quote:
Originally Posted by CJR238My sentiments exactly. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by happya$$
GOL gives the most well rounded amount of information available. Add that to others opinions, research and testing along with your own and you will have all the information needed.
Though my research always leads me back to running as many countermeasures as possible, not just one. :evil:
I entered this discussion with an open mind after owning two V-1s for 15+ years. Prior to that I owned three Cincinnati Microwave units, two of which were OK. My thought was that perhaps some other company had caught up or passed Valentine in performance. The more I read, the more satisfied I am that Valentine is still ahead of the pack. My mind is still open to objective data indicating that I am wrong. Unless I see such, I will buy another V-1 when the time comes that I need a third unit. I do not need voice alerts but I am hooked on the "locator" that only Valentine offers. As a bonus, the V-1 costs $100 less than it's nearest competitor if bought direct from the manufacturer.
I am not a member of GOL nor am i claming im 100% accurate in my answers below but this is my accumulative observations to answer your great questions.
I'm interested in seeing GOL's next testing of the V1, RedLine, 9500ci, STi as well as all of the most popular whistlers and Belscorts. Preferably 2 of each and not 4 different V1 versions, just new ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by tshrimp
Thanks CJR238, that was some good answers.
Something else I noticed in a lot of videos about Quick Trigger. Is it me or do most of those guns look like something used to clock a fast ball at a baseball game? The Bushnell looks to be a favorite. Do those accurately simulate what is seen while driving?
Those Bushnells are toy radar guns, like the ones used to measure a baseball (real guns are $1k++, not $99). But they do provide basic useful information to simulate what is seen while driving with a RD. Not good for real testing IMO, but they do the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by tshrimp
My Bushnell will accurately clock cars out to 1500 feet, not too shabby.Quote:
Originally Posted by CJR238Those Bushnells are toy radar guns, like the ones used to measure a baseball (real guns are $1k++, not $99). But they do provide basic useful information to simulate what is seen while driving with a RD. Not good for real testing IMO, but they do the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by tshrimp
Ya, I am amazed at how well they work for under $99. I'm surprised I don't see them being used by law enforcement with low/no budgets.Quote:
Originally Posted by upstatedocMy Bushnell will accurately clock cars out to 1500 feet, not too shabby.Quote:
Originally Posted by CJR238Those Bushnells are toy radar guns, like the ones used to measure a baseball (real guns are $1k++, not $99). But they do provide basic useful information to simulate what is seen while driving with a RD. Not good for real testing IMO, but they do the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by tshrimp
In optimal conditions (not a lot of other cars, flat road) I've gotten them out well past 2500 feet, but only with most trigger pulls, not all.Quote:
Originally Posted by upstatedoc
I've found a very good use for Bushnells. Let your rabbit get a few hundred feet ahead and pull the trigger. If they brake check then you know that not only do you have a rabbit... you have one with his ears listening ahead of you.
I no longer recognize this thread. <g> How we got from a quest for objective reviews of radar detectors to a discussion of using a radar gun as a toy is beyond me!
The same way someone asks about the differences between two Whistler models and it gets derailed into a Whistler verses the competition thread! The Whistler issue, BTW, is why I don't use GOL as a sole source but rather as one of many sources. There's personal bias towards the owners of Whistler products from one, though he did not post them on this site his comments are out there on the Internet. I simply cannot trust any single source, no matter how good, they all have some flaws.Quote:
Originally Posted by ben721364
Interesting. The only things that GOL measure are sensitivity and QT, both of which they reported Whistler to perform quite admirably at. So you're saying we shouldn't trust anyone who reports good results with a Whistler? :hmmmm2:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chariot
That's not what I said. Where did I say that? Personally, I think the Whistlers are darn good bang for the buck and I just talked to Radarbusters today about ordering an SE (getting it as a secondary for the wife's vehicle and for some product testing). I said I don't trust that there's not bias in GOL, just as with any other tests I've seen. Not saying GOL tests aren't among the best, but I'm not about to commit $$$ to purchases based on one group, individual or company. I don't question the results of GOL, but rather the criteria they use to determine what is tested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth StalkerInteresting. The only things that GOL measure are sensitivity and QT, both of which they reported Whistler to perform quite admirably at. So you're saying we shouldn't trust anyone who reports good results with a Whistler? :hmmmm2:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chariot
GOL is a great site, but I've found no single set of tests out there (yet) which I would consider the holy grail. :) No offense to the GOL group meant by that as its testing and there's no need for them to take data personally (though as I noted there is one) --- I understand in some small part how much effort it takes based on an all day jammer meet (not all, but some small part) and don't get me wrong: I really do appreciate the tests. However, even those tests I participated in... I cannot trust them as the sole source for a purchase decision, there are just too many variables for any single test to cover all the bases. For instance, how do various detectors perform in noisy environments rather than tests which show raw performance only (which in itself is a biased test since most drivers commute in cities and interstates next to cities), to help people determine which detectors suit how they drive.
Without questioning everything, one can never get closer to the truth, and that means a lot of questioning since technology progression makes truth a moving target. :)
Think about it. Imagine if you were looking for good objective reviews and you didn't know the gun they were using was actually not one used in real traffic enforcement, and it is what some use to check the speed of a baseball in a little league game. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by ben721364
Though it may not change the objective results much, they wouldn't be realistic. Therefore not as valuable in making a final decision on a RD.
If accurate, realistic, objective testing could be done with cheep $100 radar/lidar units as apposed to $2000 ones, a lot more of us would be using them for real testing. The local law enforcement could also save a ton of cash. ;)
I didn't say you said it. That's why there was a question mark after my question. It was a question, not a statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chariot
Me too. And that is exactly what most people would surmise from reading the GOL results.Quote:
Personally, I think the Whistlers are darn good bang for the buck...
Specifically...? There are only two criteria used by GOL: sensitivity and responsiveness. What is it that you do not like about those criteria? And if you have observed detectors to perform exactly as GOL reports, as you have said you have, then what reason would you distrust them? That's what I'm having a hard time figuring out.Quote:
I said I don't trust that there's not bias in GOL, just as with any other tests I've seen. Not saying GOL tests aren't among the best, but I'm not about to commit $$$ to purchases based on one group, individual or company. I don't question the results of GOL, but rather the criteria they use to determine what is tested.
Well there is no site or formal group that is all things to all people, which is what I would ask of a "Holy Grail". And GOL has never claimed to be such either. They claim only one thing, and that is to provide accurate and honest test results, utilising the two criteria mentioned above. Period. They do not address which detector may be best for a given user. They do not address any of the other, more subjective criteria because they would all involve inherent bias. That's why GOL does not publish "reviews". They only publish results. Reviews will always involve a degree of subjectivity. Results are what they are.Quote:
GOL is a great site, but I've found no single set of tests out there (yet) which I would consider the holy grail.
If you find any source that claims to be the Holy Grail, that is the first group you should cross off your list of trusted sources. But for black and white, unbiased, honest test results of concrete testing, GOL is indeed the Holy Grail. You are welcome to disagree, as this is a free country, but you do so with bias, which sort of kills your point.
And that is exactly why, even though I believe that Whistlers are admirable performers, and a great value for the money, I often recommend other detectors that offer features and benefits that are not covered by GOL testing.Quote:
However, even those tests I participated in... I cannot trust them as the sole source for a purchase decision, there are just too many variables for any single test to cover all the bases.
You seem bound and determined to paint GOL with "bias", even if it takes bastardising the English language to do so, and you are treading thin ice (again) with this effort. What you describe above is not "bias". Test results are what they are. Period. If you interpret them with a bias, that is YOUR bias, not GOL's bias.Quote:
For instance, how do various detectors perform in noisy environments rather than tests which show raw performance only (which in itself is a biased test since most drivers commute in cities and interstates next to cities), to help people determine which detectors suit how they drive.
As I noted, I don't question the results of the criteria (sensitivity and responsiveness), but rather the criteria itself. Those two factors favor highway detector results over city detectors. I'm curious as to how the various detectors perform in the presence of a false, with obstructions such as buildings, with city filtering, etc. If that, as well as raw sensitivity and reactivity were tested we'd get a more complete picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker
Agreeing and disagreeing with the criteria are both biased, since everyone has opinions with what the criteria should be. But I digress, as this can rapidly digress into circular logic. lolQuote:
If you find any source that claims to be the Holy Grail, that is the first group you should cross off your list of trusted sources. But for black and white, unbiased, honest test results of concrete testing, GOL is indeed the Holy Grail. You are welcome to disagree, as this is a free country, but you do so with bias, which sort of kills your point.
What do you mean by treading thin ice?Quote:
You seem bound and determined to paint GOL with "bias", even if it takes bastardising the English language to do so, and you are treading thin ice (again) with this effort.
Just like CPU benchmarks: yes the results are what they are, but some types of benchmark tests favor AMD over Intel, and visa versa. Without a complete set of tests one cannot see a complete picture over which CPU is best suited for a particular use. Same thing with browsers, different browsers claim to have the fastest Javascript engine but that does not draw the complete picture as to which browser is best suited for a job. For instance, Opera is the fastest rendering browsers out there, but battery life is longest using Internet Explorer. Plugged in Opera is a better pick for me, on battery I often switch to IE if I know I'll be unplugged for a while. Firefox has the most plug-ins available and is the most useful to me when doing site development due to its debugging tools.Quote:
What you describe above is not "bias". Test results are what they are. Period. If you interpret them with a bias, that is YOUR bias, not GOL's bias.
Maybe best to just agree to disagree, since we differ on what the criteria should be. :)
I actually don't see that we disagree. I fully agree that one cannot get a complete picture of which detector is best for a given user by GOL criteria only. Your CPU analogy is a good one. Similarly, only an idiot would choose his family car based solely upon dyno results, because the car with the best dyno isn't going to comfortably accommodate a family.
Had GOL claimed to be the only source necessary for choosing a detector, your charge of bias would be substantiated. They have not. Consequently, your accusations are unfounded, and therefore in violation of Rule #5. That is what I mean by you treading on thin ice. Retract, or pack for banned camp... again.
You wrote in part, "...only an idiot would choose his family car based solely upon dyno results, because the car with the best dyno isn't going to comfortably accommodate a family."
Dyno tests are technically laboratory tests that do not always predict real world performance. Assuming [admittedly dangerous] that you were speaking of horsepower and/or torque delivery as measured by a dyno, the number of passengers that can be "comfortably" accommodated cannot be extrapolated without more and different information.
I am still where I started when I opened this thread. Where can I go to get useful information on which to make a purchase decision?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker
:confused: The POP ON vs. POP OFF issue right? I honestly don't see how this is even an issue. The point of the last GOL test was to test every detector with factory default settings not optimal settings. If they wanted the test to be based off optimal settings, then in addition to turning POP OFF on the Whistler they would have had to turn POP OFF on the V1s (excluding 3.813), band seg the STi-r, turn RDR OFF on the STi-r, and turn Ka Guard OFF on all the V1s.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chariot
That's a different question, PM a few people who you think are knowable and base your decision off the information you accumulate.Quote:
Originally Posted by ben721364
Then you can post what you have narrowed it down to and let the public give there opinion for some fun entertainment if you want.
Perhaps you can explain to us exactly what it is you are looking for that you are not finding on this forum? :hmmmm2:Quote:
Originally Posted by ben721364
It seems as if you are looking for an authoritative source to lead you by the hand to the promised land, and choosing which detector is best for you. You are looking for something that does not exist. No site knows what your needs or driving style is. No site can tell you authoritatively which detector is going to be best for you. It ain't happening. If it were possible, then this forum would not need to exist. Consequently, you need to man-up and take responsibility for this decision yourself. Ask questions that can be answered, consider the answers you get, then make an educated choice. But again, any source that claims to know what is best for you without knowing anything about you is not to be trusted.
I think I laid out what I am looking for in the opening (#1) post of this thread, ...objective comparisons without the hint of commercial prejudices.
As stated earlier, I am happy with the detectors that I have, am considering the purchase of a third, am open minded and am looking for data on which to consider the different offerings currently available.
I got a good chuckle from the admonition that I "...man up...", for obvious reasons. Am I now banned? ;) :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth StalkerPerhaps you can explain to us exactly what it is you are looking for that you are not finding on this forum? :hmmmm2:Quote:
Originally Posted by ben721364
It seems as if you are looking for an authoritative source to lead you by the hand to the promised land, and choosing which detector is best for you. You are looking for something that does not exist. No site knows what your needs or driving style is. No site can tell you authoritatively which detector is going to be best for you. It ain't happening. If it were possible, then this forum would not need to exist. Consequently, you need to man-up and take responsibility for this decision yourself. Ask questions that can be answered, consider the answers you get, then make an educated choice. But again, any source that claims to know what is best for you without knowing anything about you is not to be trusted.
Nope. Other issues that I noted above.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopyc4:confused: The POP ON vs. POP OFF issue right? I honestly don't see how this is even an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chariot
And I think I laid out the answer pretty well in my last post.Quote:
Originally Posted by ben721364
We're seven pages into this thing now. If there were something more, you would have heard it by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker
If you are implying that you are female, then yes, you are banned. ;)Quote:
I got a good chuckle from the admonition that I "...man up...", for obvious reasons. Am I now banned? ;) :D
I was not implying anything with or by my response to the admonition that I "man up" other than that the slang and possibly vulgar (there are multiple definitions) term reflects poorly on the 'moderator.'
I apologize for my part in this exchange but not for defending myself. I was seeking information and evidently ruffled feathers. It was unintentional.
BTW, I have a question. Do the 'sponsor's rules #5 and 7 apply to moderators as they do to the rest of us? :confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth StalkerAnd I think I laid out the answer pretty well in my last post.Quote:
Originally Posted by ben721364
We're seven pages into this thing now. If there were something more, you would have heard it by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker
If you are implying that you are female, then yes, you are banned. ;)Quote:
I got a good chuckle from the admonition that I "...man up...", for obvious reasons. Am I now banned? ;) :D
Well, I do lead a pretty sheltered life, so it is certainly possible that there is a vulgar interpretation of the phrase that I am unaware of. If so, I humbly apologise for that misinterpretation. It was not my intention to be vulgar, only to make it clear that there is no one source that will give you everything you need to have the choice made for you. You ultimately are responsible for the choice you make.Quote:
Originally Posted by ben721364
No worries. I understand. It's just that the one thing that ruffles feathers here quicker than any other is to ask a question, and then ignore the answers, only to keep asking the same question over and over.Quote:
I apologize for my part in this exchange but not for defending myself. I was seeking information and evidently ruffled feathers. It was unintentional.
In the same sense that traffic laws apply to cops. ;)Quote:
BTW, I have a question. Do the 'sponsor's rules #5 and 7 apply to moderators as they do to the rest of us? :confused:
I accept your apology. I accept responsibility for my actions and do not feel entitled to anything that I do not earn, unlike some folks. Likewise, I understand that there are frequently multiple sources for information on a variety of subjects. A reading of post #1 in this thread should remove any lingering doubt about this. I even included an example to illustrate what I was looking for.
I was trying to find a reason to buy one of the products marketed by the sponsor but found nothing here to convince me to do so. I did come to conclude that products not actively marketed by the sponsor get short shrift, ...or worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth StalkerWell, I do lead a pretty sheltered life, so it is certainly possible that there is a vulgar interpretation of the phrase that I am unaware of. If so, I humbly apologise for that misinterpretation. It was not my intention to be vulgar, only to make it clear that there is no one source that will give you everything you need to have the choice made for you. You ultimately are responsible for the choice you make.Quote:
Originally Posted by ben721364
No worries. I understand. It's just that the one thing that ruffles feathers here quicker than any other is to ask a question, and then ignore the answers, only to keep asking the same question over and over.Quote:
I apologize for my part in this exchange but not for defending myself. I was seeking information and evidently ruffled feathers. It was unintentional.
In the same sense that traffic laws apply to cops. ;)Quote:
BTW, I have a question. Do the 'sponsor's rules #5 and 7 apply to moderators as they do to the rest of us? :confused:
Can you tell us what product you are talking about without violating Rule #1? And, by "sponsor", are you talking about the forum sponsor or GOL's sponsor?Quote:
Originally Posted by ben721364
From what I see those guns are K Band????Quote:
Originally Posted by CJR238Ya, I am amazed at how well they work for under $99. I'm surprised I don't see them being used by law enforcement with low/no budgets.Quote:
Originally Posted by upstatedocMy Bushnell will accurately clock cars out to 1500 feet, not too shabby.Quote:
Originally Posted by CJR238Those Bushnells are toy radar guns, like the ones used to measure a baseball (real guns are $1k++, not $99). But they do provide basic useful information to simulate what is seen while driving with a RD. Not good for real testing IMO, but they do the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by tshrimp
If so has there been QT testing on Ka Band, and how does each detector do against it (I ask because in my area we are K, Ka, and Laser)?
Yes they are K band.Quote:
Originally Posted by tshrimp
Me and a few fellow enthusiasts did some extensive KA QT testing with the more difficult KA 35.5 and some of the top RD's.
[ame="http://escortradarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1560"]Radar Detector Reaction Time Test - Escort Radar Forum[/ame]
& this video:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6oVjMpc6yY[/ame]
-