CONSUMER ALERT!! Laser Star officially sucks balls

[speed demon]

the 9500CI owns, it looks like VR has some homework to do

[Anonymous]

Originally Posted by speed demon

the 9500CI owns, it looks like VR has some homework to do

Yea I know but 9500CI cost a lot more money so it's what you pay for (for now).

Eire, I like your title. It's pretty funny.

[RadarReviews_Net]

Originally Posted by speed demon

the 9500CI owns, it looks like VR has some homework to do

Keep in mind the 9500ci radar detector is remote mounted.....the valentine one radar is mounted behind a windshield which does effect the performance.

The 9500ci looks like a great unit and the test results SHOW that it's a great unit....

My only main concern is the reliability....since it is outside the car....it takes on abuse....road debris hitting it....direct sun....wear and tear...what the lifetime expectancy of a unit like that? For a daily driver I bet the results wouldnt be quite as great say 6 months of everyday driving on the unit....to factor in the wear and tear it goes through in the 6 months....

[the horn13]

The results of the LS don’t surprise me at all. I admit that I am laughing while experiencing a major case of “Schaden Freude” towards the Goons and their leader Neil Brown.

Losers and completely worthless human beings.

So to Chris Dead D*ck aka JTW the insignificant Midget, Audi Crappo his chubby gay lover, FF05 aka Subie Neil’s #1 sausage jockey and bum boy, and without a doubt the stupidest person I’ve ever had the misfortune of interacting with, and lastly the total slim bag and despicable POS Neil “I’ve screwed the Gun” Brown.

Please go away and finally STFU. While you’re at it take all your stupid little trolls with you.

Time to rename your baby to “Loser Star”

[CJR238]

Originally Posted by RadarReviews_Net

Keep in mind the 9500ci radar detector is remote mounted.....the valentine one radar is mounted behind a windshield which does effect the performance.

The 9500ci looks like a great unit and the test results SHOW that it's a great unit....

My only main concern is the reliability....since it is outside the car....it takes on abuse....road debris hitting it....direct sun....wear and tear...what the lifetime expectancy of a unit like that? For a daily driver I bet the results wouldnt be quite as great say 6 months of everyday driving on the unit....to factor in the wear and tear it goes through in the 6 months....

Yes the V1 certainly has the advantage being mounted higher than the ci, Not sure how much the glass hampers its performance though. I’m sure durability is fine, that’s the one thing Escort is very good with on there more expensive products.
I'm thinking of mounting the ci antenna by my RVM if it can be?

[eire05]

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Eire, I like your title. It's pretty funny.

Haha Actually I'm thinking of editing it as if it did actually suck balls it would be half useful!!!

Originally Posted by the horn13

FF05 aka Subie Neil’s #1 sausage jockey and bum boy, and without a doubt the stupidest person I’ve ever had the misfortune of interacting with..

I told the arguementitive little shrew he'd be burned again...Once bitten twice shy...lets try thrice...because noing him he'll be duped again.....He's not replying now because he's arranged with UPS the delivery of some gold bars from some prince in Nigeria.....FAIL

Originally Posted by the horn13

and lastly the total slim bag and despicable POS Neil “I’ve screwed the Gun” Brown.

Sooner he's behind bars the better and have bubba as a cellmate. Hopefully he'll be shitting through stitches for months

Originally Posted by the horn13

Time to rename your baby to “Loser Star”

Haha It was an EPIC FAIL alright!!

Lol its the Laser Park XS now according to a flyer some scottish dude got on rd.net

[ProSpeeder]

"CLANK" that was the sound of my ZR3 going in the trash bin

[RadarNutt]

Originally Posted by RadarReviews_Net

Courtesy of GuysofLidar.Com for the information shown in this thread, they also conducted a radar test of the new model escort passport 9500ci and the Valentine One Radar as seen below:

Hmm... Interesting... but....

1. I have not looked at the GOL site yet. Anyone know where exactly the 9500CI units were mounted? The results are very impressive to say the least, but they also appear based on the description to indicate that one unit was mounted in the grille (thus presumably not behind bumper as many folks may want to do for various reasons), and the other mounting seems to be "mounted high" which I presume to mean windshield (i.e. inside).

Also, what was the grille made of? Plastic or metal?

How high off the ground was the grille? Was the unit tested while obscured by a Soccer Mom Giant SUV or a Hummer, or on a deserted open road?

We've all heard that the CI and Bel STi-R units supposedly perform better when mounted like a traditional radar detector versus concealed under the hood as they are designed for. So, if this was tested up on the windshield then I'd say that while that is very interesting, it does not necessarily have great value for the average consumer (or for nearly anyone for that matter).


2. There must have been something defective with their Bel unit. I mean, 300 foot Ka band detection? A 'no alert' on K-band!!??? Something is not right. The STi is a very good detector. I have used it and I would argue it's on par with the V1 in terms of sensitivity.

Someone should have had enough sense to see that there was a problem and they should either have swapped out the unit, not reported its results, or investigated the possibility that there was a problem with the radar unit and/or setup.

Actually, all of those results totally suck ass in K-band sensitivity. Again, something there is not right. I hope GOL is not using that ridiculous "radar absorbing foam" concept again, which IMHO is an idiotic concept. The radar is not operated like that so why shield it for testing? I understand the concept is to make it more difficult for a radar detector, but my point is it's not a real-world (i.e. useful) test and therefore skews the information in a pointless manner.

That is not a real-world test method, and again I would lump that (as I did their last radar test when such product was used) in the "interesting" category and not the "useful" category when it comes to results.

If they did not use "the foam" or some similarly ridiculous testing method, I have to wonder if their K-band radar is out-of-tune. Those figures are just way too low and do not make sense.


3. The 9500 is arguably top dog partly because you can now get the GPS version with RLC and Speed Cam info. Extremely useful to have (nearly) one device that does most things well. Of course, as we can see the ZR series does not belong with it, i.e. I would stick with LPP or LI as they clearly remain the top dogs in the laser jamming department, and it is nice to see the jammer results confirm that this is still the case.


4. How many different radar guns were used? Were all the major Ka bands represented, or just one? Again, this is critical information. If they only tested with Kustom units and I only drive in an area with Stalker radar, then the data has much less impact and meaning to me. Again, I am thinking of this from a consumer's standpoint who is making a buying decision.


Overall, I really appreciate the GOL group's efforts, but I still think that in some ways they often miss the mark when it comes to what is really useful to consumers. In other words, there is a difference between, "wow look at this cool thing" which wears off in about 5 minutes versus, "how can I best protect myself from getting a speeding ticket." Let's face it what most people reading this stuff want to know is the latter, and the GOL's information does not IMHO always provide that kind of information in a manner which .

Not sure if that makes sense. I really do appreciate their efforts. I know the testing they perform is time consuming and arduous. I am simply suggesting that some methodologies - to me - do not appear relevant.

I hope my comments will be seen as constructive criticism and not slamming anyone, as that is not my intent. The devil is in the details.

At least on the jammer front we have (I hope) some useful product comparisons.

[RadarNutt]

You see... this is what I always get hung up over GOL on (ok, now I might be slamming, but justified IMHO if so... read on)....

Here is an excerpt from their website (which I have not had time to read thru the whole 2008 test yet, so I'm sure I'll have more similar comments in the future... not enough time atm)....

"The following laser guns were used in this test:

* LTI Ultralyte 100 LR, 100pps
* LTI Ultralyte 100 LR, 125pps
* LTI Marksman, 125pps
* Kustom ProLaser III, 200pps
* Kustom ProLaser II, 238pps
* Kustom ProLite, 200pps
* Stalker LZ-1 (II), 130pps
* Laser Atlanta SpeedLaser (III), 238pps (normal), 68pps (Stealth)
* Robot Traffipatrol, 100pps
* Robot Traffipatrol XR, KHz range (varies)

These guns represent every type of handheld laser gun on the IACP Approved List except for one: the new LTI TruSpeed. We attempted to obtain this gun for testing."

Now, the text that I bolded above is complete BS. The TraffiPatrol guns are NOT on the IACP list (see attached document). They are only used in Europe.

So, first off there is no point in testing them and reporting this info - again to point of my last post - while this is interesting it is not useful or relevant and serves only to confuse people.

Now, why I ask would they do this???

And if they are going to do this then why not make it CLEAR that 1) the IACP comment is not true (perhaps a mistake on someone's part, but I don't think so); 2) ALL of laser jammer products - as has been pointed out in other posts on this forum - are tailored to the market they are in. So, why would anyone expect any of these devices to work against say - the TrafficPatrol guns for example??? Well, of course you would not. So, if they do great, but who cares? No one in the U.S. If you are in another country, then you might care but you don't care about the Laser Atlanta, etc. See my point?

So, this is interesting, but not relevant or important. It serves only to confuse more than it informs. It would be informative if the GOL would be clear, correct, and honest (?) about these things.

I am just raising a red flag here. I do not know why they do this, but there is clearly a pattern of mis-information mixed in with these test results. Last year was no different.

Can't we get an unbiased group of testers who actually follow something close to scientific testing, and use methods and write reports which cannot be so easily picked apart???

I'll rant more later if warranted. I need to get some work done....

['09 Milan]

Originally Posted by RadarReviews_Net

The 9500ci looks like a great unit and the test results SHOW that it's a great unit....

Well half of it is anyway

Can't say much about their ZR4