Saturday, April 12, 2014

Has Beltronics gone Sine Die?

Beltronics going dark: A case to be made for the reversals of fortune

Updated: 1134Z-5, 17 Apr 14

A brief history of the pinnacle years of Beltronics and Escort (ie; the Belscort years) from the perspective of an outsider.

While I have been driving with radar detectors since my youth (owning the very first superhet RD, the Escort) it was nearly 27 years later--when I introduced Laser Veil to be used as an adjunct to a radar detector--that I became part of this very special niche industry.  

During that time there existed three radar detectors, referred to as the ultra-premium detectors.  This powerhouse trinity was comprised of the Beltronics Pro RX65, Escort Passport 8500 X50, and the Valentine One.  The Escort and the V1 shared some DNA (no, I am not using Max marketing-speak) because Mike Valentine was once an integral-part of the original Cincinnati Microwave, the team the gave us the first Escort model.  But what had been less known at the time was that both the Passport 8500 X50 and the Beltronics RX65 also shared DNA--as the underlying design platform--that was of Beltronics.

When Escort "acquired" Beltronics just fours year earlier (a transaction that could have conceivably gone the other direction) and ostensibly became one company (consisting of two divisions), I observed that they had been operating effectively as two separate companies sharing one roof with each group retaining its identity (and allegiance).  

In my view, Beltronics (formerly BEL) had been, at its core, a technically brilliant powerhouse, but had been somewhat lacking in the sales and marketing capacity.  Contrasted to Beltronics was Escort (the original Cincinnati Microwave's petitioned reorganization), a company that was the mirror image of Beltronics at the time.  I know that opinion will probably irritate some within the organization today.  So be it. The fact that Escort's Passport 8500 X50 consisted of the Beltronics S7 platform, should settle any genuine argument to the contrary.

During that period, I had made several visits to their corporate headquarters located in West Chester Ohio just twenty minutes north of Valentine Research.  The evidence of the "divisions" between Beltronics and Escort was very clear to me.  Even some staff's cubicles even had been draped with Beltronics banners while others had Escort.  The pride of each division (now brand) was readily apparent. Yes there was some parts and resource sharing, there was at the time two separate engineering and sales "operations."

And while the online community commonly referred to the combined-organization as BELSCORT, I knew that this had been an inaccurate account of the actual composition of organization.  My perception was confirmed when it was officially communicated to me that each of the two companies preferred to be identified as Beltronics (not BEL) and Escort and both considered the term Belscort, to be a pejorative term.   Having observed, first hand, the internal structure of the organization, I respected their wishes and subsequently referred to each company (ie; brand) in a manner that was consistent with their expressly desired respective brand identities.

What the average consumer or enthusiast community member didn't realize was that although the products may have appeared to be the "same" (just with different packaging), those that had their hand in the creation of each model, certainly did not, nor did I.

During my years of driving with both of them, it became to readily apparent, to me, the subtle differences in performance and behavior that existed between the RX-65 and the 8500 X50.  Yes, they had both come from "one" company, Escort, but they were most certainly two different detectors.

The lasting impression of my visits of the time with Beltronics and Escort was that there existed internal tensions between the two camps (consider that they had once been direct competitors). But while there was certainly a feeling of some uneasiness within the marriage, these competitive tensions had actually been quite productive since they were now on the same team.

It struck me not unlike of what competitive tensions must exist between the starting quarterback and the secondary or the starting pitcher and the relief pitcher.  Tensions such as these are a healthy thing, in fact, are an essential dynamic.  They fuel the competitive "spirit" which often propels both to become individuals, each, at the top of their game.  These positive forces equally apply to organizations (ie; internal corporate divisions).

The unfortunate irony of this history is that under the tenor of John Larson (an odd appointment of one who came from GM, itself a multi-divisional company, albeit one that was and appears to remain ineptly managed), it was under his direction that Beltronics and Escort, became, for a time, BELSCORT in reality on a path to becoming essentially only ESCORT, today.

One of the problematic side-effects of his managing philosophy was that it replaced two divisional and distinct competitive spirits with one top-down-management-malaise which ultimately has had its impact felt throughout the whole of the organization and manifesting itself with the loss of individual divisional (ie: brand) identity.  And with that loss went the essential internal-competitive drive to propel each to remain at the top of their game.  We may just see how true this is in a short time.

Unfortunately the (Escort-centric) executive management has consistently been undermining the viability of Beltronics for years and they have been doing it through abject neglect and calculating brand de-emphasis.  I've seen this is as a great "crime" committed against an organization (and its constituents), simply for the aggrandizement of the Escort brand (not the company).

However, the casualties of those efforts weren't simply imparted to Beltronics they included Escort as well (both the brand and the company).  Its effects are evident in the time-line of product releases of each respective brand name.  (Note: Notice that I refrained from using the word division as my sense is that the physical two divisions that once existed have been amalgamated).

As mentioned in my previous article, instead of seeing an upwardly pointing straight-line succession of products by each brand, building up the past successes of each, we have instead experienced misfires and erratic product offerings of Escort, the company (adversely affecting both brands).

Let's take a brief look (as I seem them):

Beltronics RX65 (S7) & Escort Passport 8500 X50 (S7), along with the V1, these were the indisputable the class leading detectors of the time and for many years that followed.  Both the Beltronics and Escort models still as relevant as they were when they were initially introduced my than a decade ago.

Escort Passport 9500i series: Escort's first GPS-enabled detector. While novel, it was handicapped by Escort-centric management lacking in technical clarity and more interested in image making than letting the performance of the unit speak for itself.  The series has been plagued with behavioral idiosyncrasies that undermine the experience of ownership for the sake of enhancing perceived consumer value.

Beltronics GX-65: Essentially a mirror image of the 9500ix, but on the surface retained some Beltronicsness.  Perhaps the quintessential BELSCORT model, and one that I nearly ever used personally and the first tangible evidence of brand confusion in that this was a Passport 9500ix masquerading as a Beltronics model.

Beltronics STi Driver:  First M3 platform class defining detector, intentionally handicapped to make way for a future Escort model to be superior in performance, by design.

Beltronics STi-R: A class shattering detector, one of the very best ever produced in nearly the 40 year history of the entire industry.  Special configurations propel this detector to the stratosphere (that had not been recognized by the executive management of Escort) but was first discovered and reported upon by yours truly.

Passport 9500ci: Meant to be perceived as superior with much marketing emphasis but was, in reality, unintentionally handicapped by technically inept (Escort-centric) management, something along the lines of the 9500 series. I refrained from publishing a formal review of it.

Escort C65: Second real tangible evidence of brand confusion going down-market and collateral damage from Escort directly engaging the retail market, thwarting its long-established and developed channel sales. The first real Beltronics models masquerading as an Escort in name only.

Escort Redline: Again meant to be technically superior by design to the original STi Driver, and was in a number of ways, but like the Passport 9500ci, was handicapped by technically inept (Escort-centric) management and was one that I ultimately didn't recommend or use personally, nor did I publish a formal review of it, although provided critique privately, but obviously that feedback had little effect initially.

Beltronics STi Magnum: Supposed replacement and upgrade to original STi Driver, but again was knee-capped by Escort-centric management desiring to promote Escort as the premium brand and subordinate Beltronics to Escort.

Passport iQ: Interesting concept, on paper--but with the advent of smartphone nav. apps--serving no real market need, particularly in an RDD detectable M4-platforum.  Refrained from formally reviewing. Notice in preview article, raised the notion of crowd-sourcing application (a harbinger of what was to be Escort Live--as troubled as that application remains--and at the expense of startup Signal Active).

Escort Passport 8500 X50 Black: Surprisingly a nice update to an old-workhorse now in an M4-platform and one that I thoroughly enjoy driving with.  Nice job, Escort!

Escort Smart Radar: Another winner and is my favorite M4-design radar detector to ever come from the halls of Beltronics or Escort.  I suppose even a broken clock is right twice a day. Again, nice job Escort!

Escort Redline Expert Edition: What the original Escort Redline should have been at the start had it not been for an overly heavy-hand of marketing centric-management adversely impacting true-technical leadership. Addressed a good number of critiqued elements that I had presented privately with the initial product release.  In a few short words: The very best performing dash-mount radar detector to this point in history.  And the third real tangible evidence of brand-confusion and once again it was a Beltronics (STi-R) masquerading as an Escort product.

Escort Passport MaxOh come on! This one I couldn't let stand!  Publicly critiqued. Escort's best selling dash-mount radar detector (at time of launch) and the first real tangible evidence that Escort, the company, had not only lost it's way, but it's soul, as well.

Notice that I have refrained from mentioning the complete misfires and irrelevant products that Escort attempted to introduce into the marketplace (and failed).

I focus on the detectors, because of MCP (Escort's new benefactors) and their stated mission for returning Escort (and hence Beltronics) to their core competencies.  So I think it is crucially important to lay out (again as I see it), the product release cycle of the primary products labeled under each brand-name.

I refrained from mentioning the down-market also-rans as I believe Escort has too many irons in the fire and while I certainly can understand the value of offering down-scale lower-performing products that don't quite test-out on the bench, I believe it is important for Escort to reduce the overall count of radar detectors and instead focus on improving quality control during the manufacturing process, which has clearly taken a beating as evidenced by the Passport Max.

When I read the official position of Escort with respect to its recent acquisition by MCP:

Monomoy's direction is focused two-fold: 1) maximize profits for their investors and 2) return ESCORT to its core competency of designing, manufacturing & marketing the world's best radar detectors.

My take away from this is not only will Escort be refocusing on the radar detector market, but will be focusing on producing the "best" radar detectors. 

As I see it, "best" means best performing, not best selling.

Excellence through leadership

This should have several implications.

First and most importantly: Escort must improve the design, production, testing, and QA/QC process. Performance means nothing, if the quality isn't there and the products aren't built to last. The most successful (in terms of "accomplishment," not revenue) are those that produce products that the consumer replaces when something better comes along, not when it breaks. Extended warranties shouldn't be a viable source of revenue, if the design and manufacturing is sound, period.

Second: Along the lines of the first, simplifying the product pipeline including the reduction of b-grade products that have been used as a source for the downscale models currently being offered.  Again, best means that best.  That means upscale, premium, ultra-premium, not merely average, below average, or (even worse) substandard.  The result of which means brand re-enforcement and validation of high-quality, because the products actually are, not because of a marketing tag that says so.

Third:  It is critically important that the competitive spirit be allowed and encouraged to thrive. This is the only way to truly excel year after year, model after successful model.

Along that third point, my perception is that once Beltronics delivered us the STi-R and gave Escort's executive management a clear winning hand, they lost the initiative to continue challenging themselves to do better and instead chose to ride the "momentum" and use that momemtum to propel them into uncharted and un-charted un-tested waters.  Distractions flourished.  Technology extant was re-invented on more than one occasion.  (ie; GPS nav devices and crowd-sourcing software software apps).  

The problem with momentum, is that it never lasts, by definition.  One needs an active propulsion system and that propulsion system remains the competitive drive.

Once a company becomes the dominant one in the industry, it is at that time when it is at its most vulnerable: the time when the existential force of healthy competitive spirits that got them there often evaporates and the company instead chooses to ride the wave of past successes, gets bored, overly ambitious, too self-confident & self-absorbed, and ultimately careless. It's these dynamics which ultimately infect the corporate culture from the top-down. creating an increasing drag on what momentum there was initially.

Eventually you get passed by and the very talent that got you there in the first place often ends up leaving (because they have become bored themselves) or worse have been de-valued and RIF'd away (to another competitor)..

Now as Escort, the company, remains headless and is engaged in some serious inwardly facing soul-searching, it's critically important to remember that from chaos, comes order. Order, in the form of clarity and a unifying vision outwardly looking towards a brighter future;  an environment in which a new leader will be born (to spawn other leaders) to make that vision of a better tomorrow, a reality for all.

Blueprint for action!
  • Revitalize the BELTRONICS brand.
  • Embrace the notion of a competitive spirit between both brands (ie; divisions) of BELTRONICS and ESCORT.
  • Become your OWN competitor and let the healthy dynamics of brand-identity and competitive-drive propel both brands forward.
  • Pronounce with signage on your buildings that you are BOTH Beltronics and Escort, with pride!
  • Clarify the meaning of the primary brands of Escort (the company), including: Beltronics, Escort, Passport, Cincinnati Microwave
  • Create and maintain a subtle but consumer-recognizable differentiation between the brands and allow the customer-base, loyal to each, to flourish.
  • Direct sales and marketing efforts to re-enforce each one's brand identity with the consumer.
  • Get out of and stay out of retail, and utilize the costs savings from those operations to improve the design, manufacturing, assembly, and testing pipeline.  In other words, stick to manufacturing (your core competency)
  • Revitalize your value added sales channel and distribution systems.
  • Enable your authorized retailers to succeed by giving them the support they require.
  • Cease the unethical practice of breaking your own MAP policies and harvesting customer data for the expressed purposes of direct sales (at the expense of your wholesale and retail) partners.
  • Leverage any direct customer communication to drive sales activities to your VARs.
  • Clearly communicate your company's value proposition (mission statement) to all players including, leaders, staff, channel, and consumer and continuously re-enforce it, not just through words, but through action.
  • Increase revenues through increased market penetration, not through cannabilization of your existing sales (channel), nor  increase margin through reckless product cost cutting.
  • Empower those tasked (VAR channel) to sell and create product pull-through, do their job and don't undermine them. Remember, the most successful manufacturers have the healthiest (sales and distribution) channels.
  • Allow the technical leadership to lead their respective teams (without undue meddling from up top).
  • Share components whenever possible to streamline and simplify production and packaging all the while maintaining brand individuality. 
  • Give group leaders of each brand (ie; division) an equal voice in the management hierarchy.
  • Establish clearly defined goals throughout all aspects of the operation and hold people accountable to them.
  • Listen!  Listen to your customer-base!  Listen to your distribution and retail channels!  Listen to your staff! Encourage knew ideas no matter the source.  Forgo the "not invented here, syndrome."
  • Lose the arrogance.  It might feel good, to some, but it is self-defeating, in reality.  Lose the staff/management who personify hubris.  Replace them with those who have humility and a healthy-dose of pragmatism.
  • Have fun working together!  Fostering an environment which sparks creativity and encourages enjoyment is essential for building cohesiveness.  
  • Reward success!
  • It's Spring, open the windows and air out the place.
  • Encourage corporate sponsored employee "fun" events, away from the office, on a yearly basis to foster relationship building.
  • Change the corporate culture for the better!  A company is always greater than the some of its individual constituents.
  • Always move, never stagnate.
  • Create a culture of success, correcting errors quickly before they become mistakes.
  • Always fail forward!
I've used this analogy before and I believe it is still apt.  While Bentley was once a Rolls Royce division, it came with its own unique identity and customer experience.  Rolls Royce's products were marketed to those that preferred to be driven.  Bentley was marketed to those that preferred to drive themselves.  

Let Escort continue to cater to the drivers who place more emphasis on driving with a quiet radar detector (ie; an automatic-transmissioned Rolls) and allow Beltronics to continue to appeal to those that demand the highest performance as sine qua non (ie; a manual-transmissioned Bentley).

Now that both brands of these automotive brands are independently owned and operated--quite successfully to this day--teaches us an important lesson in corporate governance and effective brand management.

That lesson is (that) different brands owned by one company, should be able to stand on their own without the other.  They should be viable and capable of being sold off to operate as a separate entity, to be competitive and to retain their respective customer base.

If the new regime wishes to continue the trajectory of the Larson era--something that can not be true by definition--and further diminish the Beltronics brand as it relates to Escort, may I suggest that instead you strengthen it to sell it off, as opposed to letting wither on the vine?

However, I believe for Escort (the company), the smarter play yielding the biggest winning outcome for all, is to follow the above plan, so as to empower empower you...

And always, in all ways, FAIL FORWARD...towards everlasting SUCCESS!

Veil Guy

PS:  The next class shattering detector: M3, with perfected digital back-end, in a magnesium case, fully QA'd, in an exceptional package is to be branded Beltronics!

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Valentine Research: Does the next decade belong to Mike Valentine?

Updated: 1721Z-5, 12 Apr 14

Not so long ago, I proclaimed that the last decade belonged to Escort and for good reason.  In that span of time the combined organizations of Beltronics and Escort gave us the first (fully realized) GPS-enabled game-changing radar detector (Passport 9500i), the first RDD undetectable radar detector (Beltronics STi Driver), the first band-segmented radar detector ever (Beltronics STi-R), and the highest performing dash-mount radar detector of all-time (the revised Escort Redline EE).

For quite a long time, Escort (appeared to have) held all of the cards.  

However and most unfortunately, a dark cloud has been gradually forming over that organization and what may have appeared to have been a winning hand, at one time, may now simply be a house of cards on the brink of collapse.

While Beltronics and Escort have been hitting home runs, they have also been losing a good number of games.  The management era of John Larson (now having come to a close) took the company to areas with which it was not familiar and were untested.  

Beset with bad investments in new product development unrelated to their core competency; misguided investment into the Chinese market; the commitment of precious resources to (re)build a direct marketing organization (and in the process undermine their well established distribution network and sales channel) and related ineffectual tactical product cross-branding, brand dilution, distractions from (unmerited?) patent infringement suits, and loss of technical clarity suggest to me that the company had lost their way.  

Instead of us seeing a continuing onslaught of class obliterating products each built upon the accumulation of past successes, we instead got a bunch of misfires, including their latest disastrous launch of their supposed halo product, the Passport Max, a product plagued with problems and one that was clearly directed by management skilled more in marketing than technical brilliance.

With the recent involvement of Monomoy Capital Partners (a VC firm), the desperate infusion of cash may have come with an exacting toll and, most certainly, a change of governing philosophy but one that has two potentially very positive long-term implications: 1) a return to profitability and 2) a return to core competency.

Just this week, the costs at the wholesale level, of accessories have risen considerably (in only a
few short years components have inflated nearly 500%)--conceivably a very smart play for raising profitability without cutting quality.

While it is only to be expected that during any reorganization there is going to be some handing out of pink-slips, it has been especially troubling that there has been some recent cutting of high-quality personnel, resulting in the loss of some extremely talented individuals.  Cost cutting through payroll reduction can be a good thing, if done judiciously and with precision, but can impart mortal injuries if done indiscriminately, too broadly, or with haste.

In all of this, however, there's been another firm, one that has continued to manufacture products of excellence and with such focus, for more than two decades.  That firm is Valentine Research and that product is the Valentine One.  While VR may have never reached the market saturation or achieved sales or revenue anywhere near Escort (they didn't need too, either), Mike's closely-knit organization has remained absolutely focused (like a police laser beam) and committed to continually producing the very best for great value.

I am not aware of any other piece of consumer electronics, none, that remains as relevant today as much as it did when it was first launched.  I am also not aware of any product, nada, that has maintained the same retail price, either.

Mike Valentine and his organization clearly are in a class of their own.

In a few short weeks time, we all may very well be reminded again of how so very true this is.

One of the reasons that you haven't read a review of mine concerning the Valentine One LE connection or V1C for short, was in part due to the fact that I didn't want to publish a review only to find that it would become immediately stale.  That instinct may have been a good one for it appears that Valentine Research may be introducing a major upgrade to the venerable V1.  

There has been a quiet "buzz" afoot about something big coming from the boutique of VR's walls and that buzz may be soon becoming deafening.  Judging by the IP work filed (and approved) we could soon expect to see a new V1 imbued with a significantly improved display and a substantial improvement in Ka-reception capability something that I would expect would trump the Redline EE. 

On the Ka-sensitivity front, while Escort internally challenged and refused to accept my novel findings years ago about the performance benefits gained, in the real-world, from Ka band segmentation (of their own design), Valentine embraced my empirical observations and then ran with 'em.

In terms of flexibility, it wouldn't surprise me to see USB connectivity and Bluetooth integration for both iPhone and Android smartphones contained within the unit given the size of its housing. That's something I don't care for with the existing V1C--the requirement of additional components (no matter how small).

While Mike insists that GPS false lock-out is a "dangerous" thing to use (something with which I tend to agree and don't use myself), I have seen that with some enthusiast-developed software (called YAV1), that GPS-lockout using a V1C is far superior to the blunt-instrumentality of Beltronics and Escorts variants.  I can only imagine how good it could be if they attempted to do something along those lines, in-house.

I am also virtually certain that VR could really devise a system that is extremely effective at filtering out the K-band emissions of the automobile lane-departure systems which I regard as the greatest nuisance of falses ever and something that GPS-lockout is unable to tame. Certainly if Whistler can be so effective at it, I have to believe so can Valentine.

Some of this is speculation on my part, so please don't call Valentine and tell them, "Veil Guy said this..."  However if even I am only half right in my prognostication, I believe it's going to instantly catapult the V1 (or whatever it is going to be called) to the very top of the food chain and we will be witnessing an undisputed "changing of the guard," or as some would say, a "crowning of a new king."

If, on top of that, you consider that Valentine Research is just about 20 minutes south of West Chester--an easy commute for some newly "unemployed" super talented invidual(s) RIF'd from Escort by MCP--it's really not all that hard to imagine the next decade (or two) could easily (re)belong to Valentine.

Happy and safe motoring, my friends...and fasten your seat-belts!


Saturday, January 25, 2014

Whistler CR90/CR85 Review: The best values going in radar detectors today.

Whistler CR90

Whistler CR90 & Whistler CR85: The best values going today.

Whistler continues to impress me with their continued offerings of budget-valued radar detectors that offer subtly powerful capabilities beyond what their price points would otherwise suggest and without over-the-top marketing promotions.  The Whistler CR90 along with its little brother the Whistler CR85 is no exception each available at less than $180 and $150, respectively.

Like their predecessors, the Whistler Pro-78SE/XTR-690SE, the Whistler CR90 and CR85 sport a large non-reflective aquamarine-colored OLED display that is readable in all lighting conditions and is accompanied with voice alert augmentation identifying detected bands.

Whistlers have the unique ability of displaying GPS time--something more useful to read than merely the sensitivity setting as is typical of other radar detectors.  Both models are attractive and have a low-reflectance black plastic chassis.  My early production model's power cord had a tendency to come apart but I understand later models come with ones that do not.

The Whistler CR90 represents Whistler's first GPS-enabled windshield-mount radar detector which provides a national database of red light camera and speed photo enforcement locations.  The Verilight™ database is frequently updated and can be easily downloaded to your detector using the USB cable that is provided and an Internet connected PC.  Unlike the Whistler Pro-3600 which required a USB-key drive to update, the CR90 can be updated using Whistler Database Update Tools that is downloadable from their website.  Getting the program to work requires removing the file extension of .htm to execute.  But once that is done, the program can be run directly without having to be installed like most other Windows applications.

To reduce the likelihood of alerting to data points that are not associated with your route, the Whistler CR90 allows you the distinct ability to reduce the GPS alerting radius to essentially eliminate GPS alerts when driving on an adjacent highway or road--something that can occur on all other GPS enabled radar detectors.  While one can mark locations of known speed trap locations (such as VASCAR), the Whistler does not allow for GPS-lockout (auto muting) of stationery radar sources like those emanating from door openers or drone signs.

Reception to Ka-band continues to be exceptional and while X-band and K-band detections tend to lag somewhat as do off-axis detections--relative to other manufacturers higher-end models (costing twice as much or more)--they should be sufficient for most drivers.  Like previous models, the Whistler CR90 can display Ka-band frequencies of police radar at 33.8Ghz, 34.7Ghz, and 35.5Ghz to allow the driver to instantly differentiate a legitimate Ka speed trap from a Ka-false occurring at another Ka frequency that can occur when in close proximity to another radar detector in another vehicle.

Laser sensitivity is also very good and is better than windshield mount detectors of other manufacturers that cost nearly three times as much.  Since Whistler also caters to an international clientele, their detectors can alert to difficult-to-detect police laser guns used both abroad and in the U.S. that other detectors simply can not.  These models include the LTI TruSpeed S, Laser Ally & Dragoneye,  Laser Atlanta Stealth Mode, and the Laser Atlanta Torch w/Stealth Mode II.

Their increased sensitivities to laser also makes the CR90 and CR85 (non GPS model) more likely to alert to lidar-based vehicle accident avoidance systems such as those by Toyota and Infiniti.  Fortunately, these systems are readily identifiable because Whistler also has the unique ability to determine and display laser pulse rates along with their laser detections, which allows for locking them out at a push of a button.  As Whistler's engineering identifies more of these newer systems, future firmware versions will have these these pulse rates already locked out by default.

Without question the most menacing new development on the roads is the explosive use of vehicle K-band lane departure systems.  These rolling sources of RF interference often wreak havoc on radar detectors and the CR90/CR85 are by far the most adept at filtering these obnoxious systems in a manner that has the least adverse impact on K-band reception. 

Unlike other radar detectors which can add a second or two delay to alerting to K-band detections to reduce false alerts from these types of systems (and with only modest results), the Whistlers allow for incremental timing delays that were effective in eliminating the systems I encountered.   Whistler also uses a similarly configurable feature (TFSR) to effectively filter out stationery K-band and X-band traffic flow sensors that can be found on certain highways throughout North America.

Whistler has for a long time valued the importance of having quick reacting detectors which can allow them to alert sooner to an approaching radar trap than slower and more sensitive ones.  But for the first time, these new Whistlers also have the unique ability to have their reactivity to Ka-band manually adjusted in fine increments to further reduce Ka-falsing, while maintaining their high sensitivity, independently of the X or K band.

Whistlers are the only ones ever made that allow savvy owners the ability to directly alter the reactivity (speed) of detections.  This is especially useful because I prefer a detector, even potentially a less sensitive one, that can alert to brief appearances of police radar--such as those from instant-on or quick-triggered radar--than a more sensitive one that is intentionally slowed that may not.  This makes the CR90 and CR85 very special, indeed.

The CR90/CR85 both continue to provide the best city modes available on any detector.  When CITY mode is selected, sensitivity is unchanged from HIGHWAY mode, but the alerting tones to X and K sources are more mild and brief.  CITY 1 and CITY 2 modes increasingly reduce sensitivity for driving in an area that has a lot of stationery sources of radar falses, such as door openers.  These configurations and the fact that the Whistlers don't alert to extreme off-axis detections also makes them well suited for driving around town.

With respect to product packaging, I feel it is high time for Whistler to provide a nice carrying case.   In my opinion, these detectors are too nice not the provide their owners a safe way of storing them or taking them along to the airport.

In conclusion, I found the CR90 to be an absolute pleasure to drive with, allowing for eminently usable configurations simply not possible with any other radar detectors.  The CR90 and CR85 are without question the best values currently on the market.  Either one should definitely be on your short list.

Happy and safe motoring!

Veil Guy

Recommended purchasing sources (please support them):

Related Article:

Whistler CR85/CR90 Preview

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Escort Passport Max Review: Escort's First Bipolar Radar Detector

Escort Passport Max

Escort Passport Max Review: A Contradiction of the Extremes.

Updated: 1306Z-5, 27 DEC 13

Developed over a five plus year period, the Escort Passport Max was billed as being the quickest, most sensitive, and most false resistant radar detector of all time--employing new technology never seen before in a consumer radar detector.

Eye catching terms--such as HD (high definition), radar DNA, advanced digital processing, NASA-based, and military-grade technology--were ascribed to the Passport Max's new capabilities, capabilities yet to be seen in any consumer-grade radar detector.  The result was to be a radar detector possessing extreme range and quickness while being the most sophisticated at filtering out false alerts--the bane of all radar detector users.

Woah!  More than bold claims, to be sure, but quite believable at the time of the Max's launch, as the Escort Passport Max followed hot on the heels of the release of, unarguably, the highest performing dash-mount radar detector ever produced--the revised Escort Redline Expert Edition.

I would say its launch was the most highly anticipated event of the year by the hardcore online enthusiast community in quite some time.  Not surprising, as Escort's marketing machine was in overdrive.  The typical "authoritative" sources of early product promotion, including SML and Radar Roy, confirmed the marketing claims of Escort.  Even I got caught up in the buzz initially and penned an early Escort Passport Max preview where I explored the possibilities of such "advanced" technologies being incorporated into a radar detector.

Enthusiast forums were buzzing with the idea of a new ├╝ber high-end radar detector that promised to exceed the performance of the Escort Redline while providing the advanced GPS capabilities of Escort's Passport 9500ix and Beltronics GX65 radar detectors.  This detector was to have it all or nearly all (only lacking the RDD invisibility of the Redline).

Once again, Escort was kind enough to send me an early production model less than two weeks before the expected  launch.  SML, Radar Roy, and a couple highly respected forum members had also already gotten their hands on pre-production versions.  The early votes were in and the verdict was unanimous, this new Escort was something very special.

Being unusually short on time, I committed to spending an intense four days of multi-state long-distance testing with the hope and expectation of experiencing first hand its touted capabilities. The timing couldn't have been better as the July 4th weekend was soon upon us.

As the weekend approached, I set off driving through PA to NJ and NY then back south to DE and returning through MD.  I hoped the roadways would be heavily enforced during the busy holiday and I wasn't disappointed.

Over the course of four days, I experienced it all:

10.5Ghz X-band and 33.8Ghz and 34.7Ghz Ka-band in NJ
24.1Ghz K-band in Pennsylvania
34.7Ghz Ka-band and redlight camera photo enforcement in Delaware
35.5Ghz Ka-band, police laser, and 34.7Ghz K-band photo radar in Maryland

Never in such a short period did I accumulate so many encounters, including instant-on and constant-on radar.  Although I had some close calls, I emerged ticket free and had an extended and exhilarating weekend.

With all the driving, the video documentation, the near real-time posting of experiences online, I barely managed any sleep. I was entirely satisfied that I had fully profiled this detector like no other that I have profiled previously. I certainly gave it my "Max" effort and my mission was accomplished, or so I thought.

What I found was that the new Escort Passport Max was unlike any other radar detector I had previously reviewed.

So, what exactly did I find in the real-world of testing?  A contradiction of extremes.

The good stuff:

It was clear to me early on that the Passport Max was superb on X-band detection--the best I believe I've experienced in a windshield-mount.  Ka-reception, in general, was also exceptional often coming close and occasionally exceeding my reference Beltronics STi-R, STi-R+, and Passport 9500ci remote mount radar detectors.

Impressive stuff, to be sure.  The Passport Max was also adept at identifying photo-enforced red-light intersections successfully alerting me to their locations while driving in Delaware even though I would occasionally be alerted to its presence while driving on a highway (not uncommon with any GPS enabled radar detector).

Even more impressive was the extreme quickness of detection, something I have been a long advocate for and have only found with the top-of-the-line Whistlers, such as the Whistler Pro-78SE and Whistler XTR-695SE, band-segmented M3s (Beltronics STi-R, Beltronics STi-R plus, and Redline Expert), and the Valentine One.

Up to that point the Max had appeared to be living up to its claims.

That was until I experienced several take-aways.

The not so good stuff:

At times K-band reception was exceptional and at others it appeared to lag a bit. Sensitivity to police laser appeared to be only fair.  Most importantly, my very early production model failed, on multiple occasions, to alert to a 34.7Ghz instant-on speed trap when I made multiple runs at it.

This particular experience was quite troubling, especially given the speeds at which I often test.  Fortunately for me, my trusted reference Beltronics STi-R and Beltronics STi-R+ did their jobs at providing more than ample warning to the impending threats. I chalked this failure up as one resulting from testing an early firmware version which was promptly updated by Escort prior to shipping units to the general public.

Although Escort never fully articulated or defined the Max's new features, I saw no evidence whatsoever of DNA or HD "technology" in play here.

What I found was a detector that was admittedly more sensitive than the Escort Passport 9500ix--the detector the Max superseded --but also somewhat less sensitive than the M3 based reference detectors.  It also appeared to be more prone to falsing than the more sensitive reference detectors, at least in my region of driving.

In fact, it was almost ridiculous how often the Passport Max falsed, certainly at a rate that was much higher than any V1 I have ever used.  To be fair, much has changed on the roads since my V1s have been relegated to my desk drawer. 

The proliferation of radar assisted lane departure and cruise control systems are wreaking havoc on the radar detector community. Not having driven with a V1 for a such a long-time, I can't as yet comment on what the relative falsing rates would be.  That is going to have to wait until I conduct a real-world review of the latest Valentine V1C.

The bad stuff:

One of the promises made by Escort was the capability of being able to quickly sort out the bonafide radar sources (those of police speed enforcement traps) from the "noise" of other false non-threatening sources--through the use of the most advanced digital processing, all in less time than the blink of the eye.

The falsing to X-band and K-band door openers has always been tough to eliminate as they appear genuinely as weak off-axis  police radar.  Since all of the magical new DNA processing apparently wasn't able to filter these signals out (the "noise")--as was suggested, non-specifically, by Escort and their marketing arms--one has to rely on GPS lockout to do the trick.  A feature that has been in existence since the first Escort GPS detector appeared years ago, the Escort Passport 9500i and one feature that I am personally loathe to employ. Nothing new here, then.

Beyond the ubiquitous stationery X-band and K-band door openers--the notorious sources of all X and K falsing--the most menacing new development adversely impacting the enthusiast driver who owns a radar detector has been the explosive increase in the use of FMCW K-band radar based lane departure and cruise control systems in cars of every price point.  These obnoxious systems first started appearing on German-only imports just a few short years ago. Now they can be found in entry level Kias and GMs.

(Side note: If you ever driving your new car and find other vehicles abruptly braking for some inexplicable reason in front of you, it may be prudent for you to determine if your vehicle has one of these systems so you can promptly disable it before you rear-end someone you've been tailgating.   Also, be mindful of your rear-view mirror if you begin to notice chain reaction accidents that occur closely behind you.  At some point you may begin to suspect that these events have something to do your "safety-enhancing" radar polluting vehicle.)

Unlike stationery falses--which are readily identifiable by drivers--these new sources of falsing are moving and not stationery and consequently will be encountered anywhere on the road.  The fact that they are moving sources of interference eliminates the possibility of successfully using GPS lockout even if one were inclined to do so. Worse still these devices mimic the behavior of traffic enforcement radar.  Frankly, car companies and manufacturers of such systems should be ashamed of themselves for polluting the roads with these garbage signals.  But that's another story.

Because FMCW (frequency modulated continuous wave) radar actually manifests itself differently than conventional CW (continuous-wave) radar (the type used by traffic enforcement), I couldn't think of a more apt waveform which could (should) be potentially analyzable for its "DNA" (its makeup) and therefore be filtered out completely by the Max.

As it turned out, I was wrong.  Apparently there's no DNA to be found there, either, although I am virtually certain it is there.  It's just the Escort hasn't found it yet.  In fact, I have yet to discover the DNA of any "noise" the Max can identify and "filter" out, relative to any other radar detector.

It consistently falses when in proximity to these rolling nuisances.  To its credit, it falses better than the any of the M3-based radar detectors (which alert as if they were picking up strong I/O radar).

The Max, on the other hand, presents a more constant and gentle alert that waxes and wanes gradually when one approaches and overtakes a radar-equipped vehicle.  In the event* you are overtaken by one of these vehicles, be prepared to get blasted with K-band so you won't instinctively just hit the brakes.  It's going to take some conditioning, I am afraid.

In fairness to the Max, these sources present falsing challenges to all radar detector manufacturers.  In my opinion, only Whistler has devised an effective solution to these systems (more on this subject when I release the review of the new Whistler CR90/CR85).

The contradictions of the extremes:

Initial presentation

When opening the box of previous top of the line models from Escort and Beltronics, you felt you were opening something special.  The carrying case and packaging material exuded quality.  Opening the Max's packaging is somewhat anti-climactic in comparison and more typical of a conventional piece of consumer electronics.

I fondly remember the packaging of the Beltronics STi Driver. Now that was something!  But, that special something, call it mystique--the demonstrable pride a company has for its flagship product--is missing here.


The Escort Passport Max retails at $550 and $600 (for special "limited" editions, comprised of special colored cases), amounting to $50 to $100 more than the Escort Redline Expert Edition.

Despite the large increases in costs, the product construction and packaging appears to be a step down from the tank-like features of the Escort Redline and Beltronics STi Driver/Magnum or even the Max's predecessors: the Escort Passport 9500ix and Escort Passport 8500 X50.

The Max is the most software driven radar detector, sporting firmware that is meant to be easily and frequently upgraded as improvements are made.  Despite this, Escort failed to provide a small USB to mini-D cable that is required for connection to a computer to perform those updates.

I am at a loss to understand how the highest priced dash-mount radar detector of all time, doesn't come with a $0.99 cable.  Even Whistler provides a USB to mini-D cable on a their detectors that run nearly a third to a quarter of the price tag.


The Max is the first dash-mount radar detector from Escort that utilizes an advanced OLED display, following in the footsteps of Cobra and Whistler.  And while the OLED displays of the Whistlers and especially Cobras are very bright, brilliantly colorful, and eminently readable in all levels of lighting conditions, the Max's display by comparison is small, dull, dim, and virtually unreadable in most lighting conditions.

The information displayed though small and sometimes difficult to read, even at night, could be improved.  Some real-estate is wasted on the over-speed alert setting or OSP, something that I wouldn't use anyway.  Surely something more useful could be put in its place.  If not, perhaps the information that is worth reading could be made larger instead.

Mounting Bracket

The mounting bracket is huge and looks like it belongs to a much bigger GPS system.  The new sticky cup was designed to stick to the windshield better than any other detector mount and to be a step up from the conventional two-suction-cup mounts that we typically see with radar detectors.   At first blush, this sounds most promising.  Anyone who has driven with a radar detector for any period of time, will sooner or later experience the suction cup one drop phenomenon.

Thing is, the sticky cup is not necessarily sticky at all.  It is, though, very susceptible to attracting even the slightest amounts of dust and debris when it's not attached to the windshield.  While it appears to adhere well, initially, I have found the detector on more than one occasion resting on my dash, the following morning.  That's a lot of weight to drop from a height and repeated impact trauma to the case and internal electronics can not be a good thing, long-term.

To maximize the sticky cup's potential of sticking, I highly recommend washing it every time you attach it and if you elect to remove it over night, be sure to put the mount in a place that won't attract any dust.  That's easier said than done.  Otherwise, be prepared to carry a small bottle of water with you in the car to wash off (but not wipe dry) the suction cup prior to attaching to the windshield.

My recommendation would be to leave the mount on the windshield as I ultimately believe it is not practical to attach and detach it from the windshield as one would normally do with a conventional two-cup mount. When the sticky cup does stick, it does so ferociously, so much so that it feels as though the plastic components of the mounting bracket are stressed prying it off and may eventually break as a consequence.

One of the problems of leaving the bracket attached to the windshield is that it is very conspicuous and will draw attention to thieves scouting parked vehicles for expensive electronics to liberate. It is also a bear to attach and detach the Max from the mounting bracket as the space for your fingers is so confined that one often has to loosen the leveling screw and tilt the detector downward to get at it.

It's conspicuous nature can also work against you while driving.  Beyond taking away a fair share of your view out of the windshield it also calls attention to itself. I found out the hard way while test driving the Max in NJ.  I got pulled over by a traffic patrol officer as he was passing me.  I wasn't speeding at the time and was concerned as to why he pulled me over.  He informed me that in the state of NJ, as it is the law in some other states, that they are entitled to ticket drivers for driving with devices that obstruct the view forward.  It was especially annoying to him that the device that was causing the obstruction was a radar detector.

I was certain that he was going to ticket me, but I turned on my charm, told him who I was and what I was doing (professionally testing consumer electronic equipment).  He got a chuckle and gave me a pass.  But the experience did stick with me.  Know if your state has such laws on the books before driving with this bulky mount.  I don't know if Virginia specifically has similar laws on the books, but if you are going to risk the wrath of the Virginia state police they won't need to rely on an RDD to see that you have one in your car.

Another challenging aspect of using the sticky cup is that it prevents extremely high and discreet mounting of the detector.  It is simply too bulky for doing this.  Its configuration also tends to cause the detector to bounce somewhat more than what would be expected when mounted to some windshields.

I contend that the sticky cup belongs more with the with likes of the Passport iQ than a diminutive radar detector.  At a retail cost of $25 for the sticky cup alone, it may have been more practical for Escort to price the Max at $525 while offering the sticky cup as an optional accessory as it does for its other detectors.  Of course, this is a merely my opinion.

In its place, I would have prefered a standard high quality, smaller, and stickier clear two-cup mount that can be used with a host of Escort and Beltronics dash mounts, not just be dedicated to the Max.  Other manufacturers offer sticky two cup mounts, I should think Escort can as well.  Call NASA, they should be able to point you to some special material that would do the trick.

Case design and construction quality

Case construction design and quality have been brought into question, with reports from other users and my own experiences that rear lenses have popped off and outer cases have separated at the seams.  The rear lens of the radar detector comes in direct contact with the mounting bracket, and I believe is subject to stress that in time will take a toll on it.

The Max simply does not feel as though it is built to last as long as its less expensive and more proven siblings, including the Passport 8500 X50, Passport 9500ix, or the Escort Redline.

K-band reception

A special filtering mode, called TSR or traffic sensor rejection, seems to reduce, but not eliminate, the occurrence of falses originating from the aforementioned FMCW K-band lane departure systems.  But its use comes at the noticeable expense of K-band response and apparent K-band sensitivity.

This doesn't present much of problem for drivers in states that primarily encounter Ka and police laser, but most surely does for drivers, like myself, who drive in states where I/O K-band is readily used.

Furthermore, the reliance on TSR (a feature that has appeared on many of Escort's and Beltronics' products) runs counter to the nature of the radar detector's otherwise high-levels of sensitivity and quickness that are to be found on the other bands.

Even with its high level of K-band sensitivity, since there is an additional delay introduced with TSR, it is entirely possible that a Max so configured could fail to alert entirely to an approaching I/O K-band speed trap.  If given the choice, I would rather drive with a radar detector that provided lower levels of K-band sensitivity but was quicker in reacting to brief appearances of radar, like those of an I/O trap, than one that offers higher levels of sensitivity, but is intentionally slowed, that may not. 

Where's the HD and DNA analysis when we really need it?

Laser reception

Appears to have taken a step backwards versus the impressive performance of the Passport 8500 series of detectors or Escort's SmartRadar.

The ugly stuff:

Erratic behavior

The most troubling aspect of the Max, I believe, is its erratic behavior.  At times it performs like a world-class champ.  At other times, an also ran.  No single detector has presented such a plethora of conflicting behavior.

The Max falses often and at frequencies, particularly, in the extended Ka-band, that are outside the range of police radar.  While many like to point to Cobras as being the source of Ka-falsing in general, the truth is, Cobra models have, for some time, been much better in their designs and present less of an interference issue than they once did (time to get a new whipping boy).  In any event, I am certain that the excessive falsing that can be seen with the Max is a result of something going on inside of it.

Quality control

At the heart of many of these odd behavior characteristics, I believe, is a QC issue of some nature.  It appears to me that there have been an excessive amount of returns to Escort for repairs to address varying issues that have manifested themselves.  As of this writing and according to a running online poll, a whopping 70% of enthusiast users have reported one issue or another requiring one or more service returns.  Granted, the polling size is small, but the initial results do point to something unusual and suggests an unhealthy trend.

Whether certain issues stem from components, assembly, design or both, is not known, to me.

Most recently, as the temperatures have dropped in our region, the Max has begun exhibiting an unusually high frequency of false falsing (alerts to radar signals that simply don't exist) for extended amounts of time and they have been occurring more frequently.  The frequencies reported rapidly change and have appeared on just about every police band sometime in quick succession.  There is no rhyme or reason to it.  I can only suspect that the cold weather is either causing an expansion/contraction issue or is causing an internal component to act erratically. Interestingly, this is not the first time an Escort model has reacted adversely to temperature swings.

For existing owners there is a simple way to test if you unit is experiencing this issue.  First, use the following band reception settings: X, K, Ka, and Laser all set to ON.  SENS mode set to highway.  Drive with it this way for an extended period of time.  If you start receiving questionable alerts in the manner as described above, change the detector's SENS to AUTO NoX.  If the alerts cease, then the unit should be serviced by Escort.

To be clear, not everyone is experiencing these occurrences and many are quite happy with the Max overall.

The Lithium Treatment

Despite these idiosyncrasies, the Max does show promise.  I like to think of it as a diamond in the rough.  Even though its development spanned more than five years, the Max feels as if its release to the public was rushed.

What I believe the Max needs the most, is time.  Time to evolve. I am pleased to see that there have been general improvements made with each new release of firmware (currently at v1.7).  Yes, there are bugs that remain, but with each subsequent release, I am hopeful that team Escort will squash them.

Improvements, to the packaging and construction, must certainly be taking place.  To Escort's credit, their online representatives have stated that they are listening to the feedback of the enthusiast community.

As a new platform, the "digital" back-end should easily be applicable to the mighty M3-antenna front-end that is found in the Redline and their high-end remotes.  And while it is still unclear what the new digital processing back-end accomplishes as a practical manner (perhaps an increase of a couple of dBs in overall sensitivity?), its coupling, along with refined software, improved QC, may be the end-all be-all winning combination for the enthusiast community (and everyone else). We won't really know what is possible until Escort actually attempts it.

Whatever flakiness that is appearing in some units, I trust, will be sorted out in time.  Apple, itself, has had its fair share of early fumbles with the iPhone 4 series of phones and has managed to successfully evolve the model, despite some bumps in the road.

A recalibration of the marketing message wouldn't hurt either.  Had the Max been presented to the enthusiast community more appropriately as an improvement to the outgoing 9500ix, the Max would have been more universally accepted (not withstanding the QC issues).

Now that the holiday season of shopping is essentially behind us and the doldrums of the winter weather (sales) are upon us, this would be the most opportune time to do so; to emerge stronger next spring just ahead of next year's driving season.

Yes, relative to my other reviews, I have reported a fair share of perceived shortcomings, but with each one a "fix" is also readily apparent.

For those not in the know, Escort has been historically comprised of two independent companies.  Escort and Beltronics.  In my view the Beltronics organization (or what's left of it), was the real technological driving force behind both companies.  The venerable S7 and M3 platforms are all designs of Beltronics.  Escort is clearly an effective driving force of sales and marketing.

But in my opinion, certain recent products branding the Escort name feel to me to have been cooked up in a boardroom full of marketing personnel and not engineers.  Products such as the original Passport 9500i, Passport 9500ix, Passport 9500ci, Passport iQ, and the initial Redline, while impressive on paper, each has fallen somewhat short in my book in one fashion or another.  The same goes for the Max.

Products from Beltronics, on the other hand, have consistently been power houses.  Recent models that come to mind are the original Beltronics RX65 S7, S7 versions of the Escort Passport 8500 and Passport 8500 X50, the revised M4 Escort Passport 8500 X50 Black (which now feels like the S7 version), Beltronics STi Driver, the top-of-the-detector-food-chain killer Beltronics STi-R and STi-R plus M3-based remotes, and the Escort Redline Expert Edition (which I contend is a windshield mount STi-R masquerading as an Escort product).

To me there is a clear pattern here as well as a path towards future greatness for both brands.

If I were ever asked to attend a board meeting (yeah right!), I would suggest to the team to leave the product development to their proven engineers and the marketing to their proven marketers.

Now that Escort has new owners, I hope the individuals and supporting teams that have proven themselves historically will be allowed and encouraged to work their magic without undue oversight or influence from inept or marketing-centric management that is out of touch with what it actually takes to inspire and produce brilliant products, worth marketing.


More than any other radar detector, I have produced an extensive collection of unedited made-in-the-field videos.  There are far too many to include in this writeup, but they are provided in the above link for those interested in closely examining its real-world performance.

As it stands now, I can not specifically recommend the purchase of this radar detector at this particular moment in time.

For those on the fence, Escort does offer a risk-free 30-day money-back guarantee test drive, making it very easy for anyone to safely try it for themselves.  For those unsure, I would encourage potential buyers to read other sources and get different perspectives.

For first time buyers or those relatively new to this industry, I caution you.  Escort--like all companies that have large market share--exerts tight control over their marketing messages both in print and online, as they have the right to do so.

When it comes to reading any review for any product, I suggest following some general guidelines.

Be wary of any "review" or "post" that proclaims the benefits of marketing buzz-words mentioned by the manufacturer's press releases or sales copy.  Also consider the source--such as a car magazine, in this case--and whether or not it contains full-page four-color ads from the very manufacturer whose products they are also reviewing.  Those suckers cost a mint and the old-style (in-print) press has been feeling the pressure of Internet copy and enthusiast forums for some time and as subscription levels continue to fall, so may journalistic standards. 

Furthermore, when you read a "review," be sure to ask yourself if the reviewer sounds credible or qualified to review such a specialized product--in our case a radar detector.  Without naming names, I came across a review which ranks very favorably with Google.  It appears to have been written by someone I never heard of before (and I've been involved in the industry for a long time) that appears to have just gotten his learner's permit.  In the "review," the author speaks of its ability to see and alert to laser coming from around a bend--which for all intents and purposes is a physical impossibility.  Clearly this young and inexperienced individual is not qualified to make an informed judgement one way or the other.

One site I have come to appreciate is  This site not only nicely summarizes its take on any given product, it does the unique thing of reviewing the quality of their sources, with which they draw upon to make their assessments. I often find myself referring to them when I begin researching some new product.

And if you still haven't gotten your fill of information, you've got another ace in the hole!  This detector has been one of the most thoroughly vetted radar detectors online by some very knowledgeable enthusiasts who actually use products such as these on a daily basis to protect their own personal driving records. Links to such resources are provided at the end of this article.

But even there you have to be careful because the same dynamics of influence can be present.  In the case of forums, ask yourself is it truly independent or closely aligned  (cozy) with any one or more manufacturers or dealers?

While this is not necessarily a bad thing (in fact the opposite is often true), be mindful.  It should be relatively easy for you to spot which reviews and online posts are genuine, unbiased, and informed versus those that are uninformed, biased, or read like marketing pieces.

It may take a lot of work initially, I know, but once you get familiar with the nature of the communities and their internal politics and you have formed friendships and trust-bonds with other members, it becomes a much more simple task of becoming an informed and educated consumer, yourself.  Be forewarned. Participation may become an addiction!

For those intending on purchasing thsi detector, I would suggest the purchase of an extended warranty.

Please support the dedicated independent authorized dealers by purchasing directly from them.  They can also provide expert guidance on other related products to keep you ticket free, something a big box shop like Amazon, eBay, Best Buy, or even the manufacturer themselves simply can't do.

Recommended purchasing sources:
If and when this detectors evolves to the point that merits my reconsideration, it will be my pleasure to do so.

Happy and Safe Motoring! 

Veil Guy

Postscript:  I would like to express a sincere thanks to Mike (forum handle: mfs165) who was gracious enough to purchase me a unit for review and for his selfless support.

Post Postscript:  If you wish to delve deeply into the online enthusiast community, I recommend you visit:,, or (mfr. owned).  Here, you can engage in plenty of illuminating and lively discussions with an informed community of certifiable nut-cases, just like myself. Just remember to bring your meds.

* Thanks OpenRoad for the edit check

Tuesday, July 02, 2013

Whistler CR90 Review/Preview: Whistler 3600 for the Windshield

Whistler CR90 Review/Preview: Whistler 3600 for the Windshield

Whistler CR90

Read the full Whistler CR90 review.

Those of you have been following my reviews and articles over the years already know how much of a fan I have been of Whistler.  My support for this company and its value priced models began the day I witnessed a $120 Whistler windshield mount radar detector spank a very expensive remote installed detector (sold by a company with a letter followed by two numerals).  Up to that time, I had considered Whistler, quite frankly, an also ran.  In reality, I couldn't have been more wrong.

Since that time, Whistler's engineering has continued dazzling me with more improved offerings, year after year, of value-priced over-achievers.

A couple of years ago, I had the pleasure of installing Whistler's first GPS-capable remote radar detector, the Whistler Pro-3600, into my wife's Subaru and since that time, we have been well-served with its capable radar, laser, red light, and photo enforcement alerts as well as all the capabilities that I have come to expect from the addition of GPS.

Had it not been for some legal disputes that tied up several detector manufacturers--we likely would
have seen this detector sooner rather than later.

With the Whistler CR90, it is nice to see that the GPS-circuitry is all internal and I personally find the revised chassis more attractive than the Whistler Pro 78-SE models that the Whistler CR90 supersedes.  I say the Pro-78 series because the display will be the same high quality OLED blue display found on that most recent model. 

Unique to Whistler is verbal augmentation of RSID.  In other words, the detector can be configured to verbally indicate a specific Ka frequency, such as 35.5.  The CR90's power cord includes a secondary USB connection to power smartphones, such as an iPhone, a very handy thing, indeed.

Performance wise, nothing really new here, so I would expect essentially the same detection ability to radar and laser as the most recent SE series of detectors.

The CR90's GPS database can be quickly be kept current however the unit will need to find its way to your laptop or PC as it does not directly mate with a USB thumb-drive like the Pro 3600.  Beyond the preloaded GPS database, the CR90 supports about 1000 custom user-marked locations.

Unlike Escort and Beltronics, the Whistler comes preloaded with the GPS and doesn't require an annual renewal fee to stay current.  This makes these new radar detectors from Whistler even greater compelling values.

The suggested retail price of the Whistler CR90 is set at $279.95 USD.  The street price is surely to be less.  Expect to see the CR90 to begin shipping mid later this month and I expect to get my hands on one for an early review sometime before that as has been typical with Whistler's previous models.  Until that time, I am pleased to see that Whistler has imbued a windshield-mount radar detector with the same capabilities as their venerable Pro 3600 remote.

Happy and safe motoring!

Sunday, June 09, 2013

Escort Passport Max Review/Preview: How Much Range is Enough?

Escort Passport Max Review/Preview: How Much Detection Range is Enough?


Escort Passport Max Radar Detector

Updated: 12-17-13

Read the full Escort Passport Max Review, published on 12-17-13.

Hot on the heels of the release of the revised uber-Escort Redline windshield mount radar detector (which I just published a review), Escort is preparing for the release of a new radar detector that they are billing as their most sensitive and longest detection range radar detector to date.  The Escort Passport Max is the replacement for their very popular Escort Passport 9500ix windshield-mount GPS-enabled radar detector.

What's in a name?  

It only seems logical that Escort is moving away from assigning numbers to their radar detectors.  Over the last several generations of radar detectors spanning more than a decade, their detectors have been named 7500, 8500, and 9500.  I suppose a 10500 would be a bit too much numerically, almost looking like a product sku, not a model name.  The Escort Max's name immediately implies maximum performance...again logical, and I am fully expecting that Escort will deliver on its nomenclature.

While the Escort Max is not being marketed as a stealth (RDD undetectable radar detector), like their Escort Redline, it looks that it may one-up their Redline by offering increased sensitivity (potentially greater detection range) and improved false rejection while providing all of the advanced GPS capabilities of the outgoing Passport 9500ix--redlight camera and speed photo enforcement detection, GPS false lockout, variable speed-based sensitivity, improved (off-axis) laser detection (especially useful for drivers who use the Veil anti-laser stealth coating), and an advanced OLED display (a first for Escort).

While some may be disappointed that the Passport Max is not undetectable, like its sibling the Redline, Escort's have been getting harder to detect at much shorter ranges by the Spectre RDD for quite some time.  I suspect the Max will continue in this vein.

So, if that weren't enticing enough to get you on the waiting list to purchase one, Escort is promising (for the first time) an extremely quick reacting radar detector.  This last point is significant (because it is a departure from Escort's products of the past both in terms in marketing and function) and it is this topic that I would like to subsequently explore.

And with all the marketing hype of the Passport Max's extreme detection range, I thought it important to provide a bit of a reality check, here.

The difference between increased sensitivity and increased long-range detection

The notions of sensitivity and detection range are complex ones as there are a good number of dynamics that come into play--all of which must be delicately balanced by sophisticated signal processing and subsequent alerting behavior.

For starters, increased sensitivity performance doesn't necessarily translate to increased detection range.  This isn't the fault of the radar detector, it is the nature of radar wave propagation, itself.  There are instances where I have found a modestly sensitive $150 mid-level radar detector can alert ahead of or in unison with a $1600 high-end ultra-sensitive radar detector.  The reasons for the apparent contradiction may be two-fold.

The first and perhaps the most important dynamic here, is the nature of the radar wave-form that is being detected.  If you can picture the wake that a boat makes in the water, suppose you were crossing its path perpendicularly in another boat.  You wouldn't actually feel that wake until you actually crossed the wake's outer disturbance wave.   Another example of this is when you watch a high speed jet fighter fly by you.  You may not hear the sound until well after it passed by you.  This phenomenon is not unlike some radar encounters.  In cases such as these, more sensitivity doesn't translate into increased detection range.

The second dynamic is the signal processing speed and pre-alert radar detection qualification.  Just because your radar detector doesn't go off, doesn't mean that it isn't working.  On the contrary it is.  Most drivers are not aware that their radar detector is always working--listening for radar and pre-qualifying what it hears before deciding whether to alert or not.

Just in the earlier example, it is not uncommon that a lesser radar detector--that is quicker or has less processing overhead--can out alert a more capable radar detector that (may detect earlier) but either does a lot of signal processing or waits longer before alerting to a signal that is has seen.  I have documented and written about this any number of times.

How much detection range is enough?  

Can you have too much detection range?  Certainly, I believe so.  I find reviews that tout super-long range detection (in excess of 9 miles or more)--to constant-on steady state radar--as being the end-all-be-all of radar detection performance to be laughable and ultimately of little value.  Why?  For a good number of reasons.

The failings of these tests are where and how they are performed.  Tests that produce super-long detection ranges are conducted in places where the vast vast majority of us drivers don't even drive--on remote desert roads out West which experience super low humidity (humidity reduces detection performance) and have flat unobstructed terrains that extend as far as the eye can see.

Such tests are misleading because even the most sensitive radar detectors alert no where near these distances in areas of development, like suburban and urban roadways where we spend 99.99% of our driving.  In these remote areas, detectors that are capable of alerting at 14 miles in the most optimal test conditions often alert in mere hundreds of feet in the real-world.  Again, as I mentioned earlier, this is not the function of the radar detector, but the function of terrain, weather condition, and radar propagation.

One testing facility has performed long-range detection tests for years.  But, in the not so distance past, their tests produced no clear winners.  Everybody likes a winner, especially in radar detector shoot-outs.  This presented a problem to both the tester and the participating manufacturers.  When a lowly inexpensive Cobra can, in perfect testing conditions, alert at 9+ miles-the same as a high-end a much more expensive (justifiably so) radar detector--the manufacturers of these top-of-the-line radar detectors didn't take too kindly to the result (and I don't blame them, either).  The test itself, became meaningless.

So what is one to do?  Throw out the test and devise another more useful test to reveal the differences that indeed exist?  Certainly not!  You modify the test by adding another seemingly important (but utterly useless) parameter: signal strength alert level.  The idea being if--at the outer ranges of detection--detector A alerts with a signal alert of 6 out of 9 levels versus detector B which alerts at a signal strength of 2 out of 9 levels, then detector A must be more sensitive.  On the surface and to the layman, that premise may sound plausable, but in reality, it is entirely false.

Any detector company wanting to "win" (or at least appear to win) these sorts of silly tests would only need to excessively ramp up their reported signal strength.  The problem is by doing this, the value of the signal strength meter is utterly destroyed.  I am afraid this scenario may have already happened at a certain expert professional review site and, I believe, has created some unfortunate and long-lasting side-effects that have only recently begun to be mitigated

The purpose of the signal strength indicator is to convey the sense of urgency of the approaching radar threat.  That is it!  It has nothing to do with sensitivity.  At 9-14 miles away there is no urgency as it's going to take nearly 8-15 minutes to actually come within the clocking range of the police cruiser.  At a signal strength of 6 or more out of 9, you would believe that you were about to have a close encounter and you would react accordingly.  In reality, the appropriate reporting level should be a 1 or perhaps, at most, a 2 out of 9 at such a vast distance.

Which brings us back to the question, how much range is enough?  The dirty little secret is: today most radar detectors, regardless of price, have more than sufficient detection range in many (most) conditions.  Other attributes of radar detection performance, that are just as important, need to be considered .  Does this mean then that there is no value to owning a radar detector that has greater sensitivity?  Of course not! Why do you think my favorites are the SmartRadar, STi-R series, and the new Redline?

So, when does long range detection really matter?

In my opinion there are only a handful of cases (important as they are!) where sensitivity and radar detection range really matter:

The first and by far the most important one, in my opinion, is in the ability of a radar detector to alert to brief instances of I/O (instant-on radar) at great(er) distances.  Since radar is being operated in such a furtive manner; is only being broadcasted for very brief periods of time; and is representative of the most lethal form of police radar (as the officer is selectively clocking speeds of individual drivers) one needs to be made aware of these threats as absolutely as early a possible.

Years ago, I experienced a number of real-world speed traps where my Beltronics STi Driver provided me additional alerts--of approaching instant-on X-band and K-band police radar to the Valentine One with which I was also driving.  Here the increased sensitivity (and subsequent detection range) of the STi Driver was extremely useful as it provided me with nearly a 30 seconds of additional reaction time over the V1--not an inconsequential amount of time, to be sure.

Another case where sensitivity and detection range matters is in detection of extreme off-axis or reflected portions of police radar.  If a radar detector is sensitive enough to "hear" a weak reflected off-axis signal it could provide its driver with an increased level of protection.  Instances such as these can happen when a cruiser is shooting vehicles ahead from behind and a more sensitive detector may be better suited to picking up on those weak (and brief) reflections.  However, to also be effective in this, a detector must be quick enough to be able to alert to the brief windows of opportunity that may exist in these targeting scenarios.

Can a detector be too sensitive?

Yes, I would say it could--provided that it didn't have extremely sophisticated processing or there was no way to differentiate between real and bogus sources (even if it had).  If a radar detector is too sensitive, it could alert to sources of radar which are too far away or are of no threat (like the ubiquitous X and K-band door openers).  If a super sensitive radar detector ends up alerting all of the time or to non-existent threats, the driver will either discount all of the alerts (including the real ones) or simply turn the detector off.  In either case, the value of the detector and the protection it affords have been marginalized.

Does one really need to be alerted to an approaching radar threat 20 miles away?  Are you crazy?  I certainly wouldn't want to be!  That would mean that I would likely either drive slowly for 20 minutes (not likely) or mute the alert and ultimately see my speed inadvertently creep back up.

To put long-range detection tests into their proper context, one could reasonably assume that a given detector than can alert at much farther distances (than another given detector)--in their most optimal test condition--has the potential to alert before that other same detector, even if the more sensitive one provides its initial at merely 1000 feet--in a real-world radar encounter.

In other words, those potentially vast and eye-popping differences in detection range (ie; miles) may only appear, in the real-world, separated by just 200 feet.  But those 200 feet could provide very valuable additional time, indeed.

For me I want my radar detector to provide me with just enough time to safely and mildly react to an approaching police radar threat (within a single mile away), no more or no less.  Simple, isn't it?  

What makes a quick radar detector?

Those that have been following me for any length of time know that my preference is always towards a quick radar detector over a more sensitive (and slower) one.  When I first discovered and wrote about the implications of band segmentation and reduced filtering options that first appeared in the Beltronics STi-R (evolving into the STi-R Plus), it quickly became my favorite radar detector of all-time not--only because of it was the most sensitive ever detector, but because it was also the most quick reacting detector.  At the same time, the originally released Escort Redline had little appeal to me, because while it was certainly sensitive and capable of long-range detection, it was slow and had a choppy and too aggressive signal-strength ramp-up (see earlier section about long-range tests).

Making an accurate radar detector

Getting back to the Escort Passport Max, Escort is claiming to be offering a radar detector that can "intelligently" decide, extremely quickly, whether a radar source is real or not and whether it merits alerting.  I suspect this advanced capability is due to some very powerful and fast CPU processing.   Just like a faster computer, a radar detector who's "brain" runs at 200Mhz* (versus one that operates at merely 16Mhz) can perform a lot more (complex) pre-qualification tests of detected radar signals in short amounts of time.

Truth be told, signal processing, I believe, (no matter how fancy or fast) can only take you so far.  CW (continuous waveform) radar will always appear as bonafide police radar whether it is or not.  I don't believe it's possible to analyze them or filter them in and of themselves.  In these instances, I believe GPS lockout may be the only viable solution (provided it is a fixed stationery source).

But, perhaps an advanced detector could see a previously locked-out stationery source of K-band radar and an additional radar source of the same band at another time.  Perhaps such a detector would then alert to the presence of the additional source (and not to the original locked out stationery source).

Another example of radar that can be filtered out are the false Ka-signals emanating from the LOs (local oscillations) of other proximate radar detectors.  Where the Valentine One models have the 'J' feature which occurs after its alert to such a false source, it is very conceivable that with enough processing horsepower, these initial Ka false alerts can be dismissed in their entirety.

However, other radars can be effectively differentiated by careful analysis.  An example of radar that can potentially be filtered out is the FMCW (frequency modulated continuous waveform) radar found on lane departure, adaptive cruise control, and collision avoidance systems that are appearing with greater frequency--all based upon frequency modulated K-band radar.

Perhaps yet another and even more impressive example is the ability of an extremely advanced radar detector to alert to a briefly appearing I/O of K-band radar while at the same time it is detecting (but not alerting to) radar from a speed sign and/or a FMCW source from a vehicle your are overtaking.  Again a detector such as the V1 may indicate a bogey count of three (in this case), but the decision is still left to the driver what is actually going on here.

If its an area that is routinely driven, then perhaps the V1 owner would recognize the additional threat source, but if it the driver's first encounter in this area, there really is no way to know what is actually going on and whether or not a real threat is being merited by the detector. However, if a detector could filter out two of those three sources and only alert to the real-threat (the I/O police radar), the utility of such a capability, I believe, would exceed the value of a bogey counter altogether and present a real breakthrough in radar detection.

The above examples certainly demonstrate the value of extremely quick high-end digital signal processing when used to accurately identify and alert to bonafide radar threats that have been thoroughly parsed out of the RF noise that often exists in areas of population and moderate to heavy travel--where 99.99% percent of driving occurs.

Wrapping things up

In closing, I believe Escort, in creating the Passport Max, is continuing its pursuit of manufacturing the "perfect" radar detector.  Assuming the Max performs at the same level that marketing claims it can and perfectly balances its advertised extreme levels of sensitivity and accurate false alert rejection, Escort is promising that their new Max radar detector will leave all other would-be competitors in the proverbial dust.

As always, once I get some extended driving time under my belt, I will follow-up with a detailed review to see if these bold claims hold true in the real-world.  One thing is for sure though, the updated Escort Redline is going to be a really tough act to follow.

Drive safely!

Update 8-5-13: Given preliminary experiences, I am currently recommending that those interested in obtaining this detector, either be very mindful of frequently updating it with the latest firmware available on a regular basis for a time, or waiting until such time the Max receives sufficiently more tweaking/updates from Escort. I will continue to post updates on its development and refinement progress.  So be sure to check back from time to time for the latest status.

Veil Guy