Quote:
Originally Posted by JackG
With my earlier detection, I just lift, so no pad wear. After you study the arrows and figure out if you need to slow or not, those poor pads of yours take a beating, don't they?
|
Who says I brake unecessarily? Prudence would have it that one would slow down more with less information. V1 got top rating for radar selectivity for falses. No need to "study" the arrows, some people such as yourself may require more time, not me. It takes a glance, same time it takes checking the speedo.
"The signal in front was a reflection. The signal behind was the real one. While you were looking at the arrows and around you trying to figure things out, I was lifting and saving my butt. No arrows (falsly pointing at a reflection) needed."
I'm not sure it was a reflection, the rear arrow went out a couple times when the front never did. It's possible the front car had a jammer. Also other detectors set off the V1 sometimes, without displaying the "J".
"Maybe the 8500 doesn't false as much as the V1, or it is better at weeding out the real stuff. "
Says who? All published testing says otherwise.
"There are places that I travel through that have weak signals (falses), and I've also encountered "real" radar in those places. The 8500 told me very plainly that there was a different signal there."
What's your point, V1 has strength signals too.
"C&D has an adgenda... it's called advertising dollars."
That absolutely makes ZERO sense in the context of this argument, as they could rate ANY detector and get ad money. So why did they top rate V1? Are you asserting that CD is paid to give V1 lip service?
"You're stretching quite a bit there. Unless you are doing the testing, you simply cant make the statement that "They are comparing it as evenly as possible".As you said, you just don't know."
I do not take their word as gospel nor definitive, HOWEVER, from their past methodogy, it's more scientific than myth busters and holds a heck of a lot more weight than YOUR unsubstantiated incident, where virtually nothing could be standardized. I don't expect their study or anyones to be exhaustive as if they had gov't funding. That's what I mean by "evenly as possible", given their resources.
So as you said I don't know with
certainty of their findings, but I do know this: I trust both those publications
TESTS WAAAAAAAY more than YOUR amateur
account.