Deep Dive Review: Valentine One V1connection for iPhone or Android with Custom Sweeps, PART IV

Deep Dive Review: Valentine One V1 connection, Part IV

Valentine 1 v3.894, V1 Connection LE, Custom Sweeps

Detection Performance

The Value of Band Segmentation to Improve Alerting Performance

A little more than six years ago when was road-testing the first M3-based Beltronics STi-R remote radar detector, I first discovered and published what may turn out to be the most significant development in radar detection for decades.  That discovery was the performance gains that could be realized, in the real-world, when scanning smaller portions of the super-wide Ka band that was allocated for police radar use.  

In the U.S., police radar operates at 33.8Ghz, 34.7Ghz, and 35.5Ghz.  However, the entire spectrum allocated begins at 33.400Ghz and ends at 36.000Ghz.  That amounts to a total width of 2,600 megahertz or 2.6 gigahertz! That's really large when compared to K-band's width of 200 megahertz (24.050Ghz - 24.250Ghz) and X-band's paltry 50 megahertz (10.500Ghz - 10.550Ghz).

What this has meant is that all radar detectors historically had to scan through the entire width of the Ka spectrum to listen for what amounts to only three specific and much narrower frequencies or actual police radar transmissions.  In other words, detectors have been wasting a lot of time listening to frequencies where police radar doesn't exist.  Not only did this adversely impact the speed of detections (especially to briefly appearing weak radar), it increased the likelihood of detecting "false" Ka radar frequencies of non-police origin, such as older "leaky" radar detectors which can emit weak Ka-band RF.

Beltronics created the ability to segment certain frequencies out of the total spectrum of Ka for the purposes of reducing falsing to these other sources.  What the engineers didn't realize was that there were decided performance gains to be had to catch brief glimpses of weak Ka by improving the detector's chances of being able to detect them because of the significantly shorter time it took for the detector to scan Ka. Apparently this behavior wasn't easily observable in a lab environment, but for those aware of the benefits of the configuration, could be observed in the real-world.

While Beltronics and Escort were slow to realize the virtues of speed in detection (they now get it), the wizards at Valentine Research, quietly embraced the concept and incorporated their version of segmentation into the V1 in December of 2012.  But Valentine one-upped the M3s because they gave the savvy owner the ability to specify the actual frequencies the V1 listens to as well as allow for a prioritizing them by allowing more than one look at a frequency range in its overall sweeping pattern. VR allows the sophisticated driver up to six customized sweeps.

Furthermore, one has the ability to create named profiles, each having different configuration settings which allows for quick configuration changes at a push of one button.    Interestingly, I had made a similar feature request of Escort for their SmartRadar and its corresponding app several months earlier prior to the initial release of the V1Connection but they have as yet to offer such a useful feature in their software.

Clearly VR had not been sitting on their laurels as some had suggested over the years. Yes, the segmented M3s stole much of the spotlight over the years, but VR has made considerable improvements to the V1 over that same period of time.  The first version of the V1Connection and its accompanying mobile app appeared on the Android platform.  The V1Connection LE module and an improved version of the software came for the iPhone about six months later in the Spring of 2013.

Baselining the V1's Performance in its Default Configuration

For a couple of months, I drove with the V1 in its default configuration without the use of the V1Connection option.  I did this to get a very good feel for how the detector behaved without any tweaking.

What I found was, in its default standard configuration, the V1's performance was what I had come to expect. While not at the level of the segmented Escort Redline EE nor the other segmented M3-based remotes (Beltronics STi-R and STi-R+), the V1's X and K-band detections were exceptional and appeared to me to essentially be on the same level as the M3s. Ka band reception was where the differences were notable.  The V1 tended to trail the segmented M3-based detectors sometimes by a wide margin.

Lidar (police laser) reception continues to be absolutely dominated by the V1.  It is scary good.  No other radar detector comes even close to the sensitivity of the Valentine and no other detector ever has.  The V1 is the only detector that I have found that routinely provides advanced warning to laser when a vehicle ahead of me is being targeted.  No other detector has the ability to do that. Zero. Zip. Nada. Given the instant-on nature of laser and the fact that it is you that is specifically being targeted when a detector alerts, I consider it to be the most important reception "band," by far, of all of the others. The height of the detector both front and back plays an important in determining its laser sensitivity. Thinner detectors, while nice, have to sacrifice laser sensitivity because the size of the laser detection sensor has to be smaller and other detectors effectively have zero laser reception capability from the rear.  The V1's taller chassis,  allows for large laser sensors, helping to contribute to its stellar performance for both front and rear detections.

This is especially true for drivers (like myself) who rely on Veil, a passive laser countermeasure which diminishes the ability of police to obtain your speed during targeting.  When using Veil as part of your defense arsenal, it is absolutely essential that your detector provides more than adequate laser detection capabilities.

While detectors from Beltronics and Escort have been erratic with laser reception from model to model (the latest Max being absolutely atrocious at it), V1s appear to only get better.

Tapping the Potential of V1's Detection Performance with V1Connection

V1connection LE Bluetooth Module

Just like segmenting took the performance of the M3s to a whole new level, I am pleased to say, so does custom sweeping the V1. Anyone willing to invest a small amount of additional currency ($49) for the optional Bluetooth module and some additional time and effort into programming the V1 with the app, will extract huge dividends in performance.

On the detection front, X and K-band remain unchanged and are still basically toss-ups between a segmented Redline.  On 33.8 Ka band, the V1 appears to consistently dominate the M3 detectors. 34.7 Ka tends to favor the M3s and with 35.5 Ka, even a little bit more--in the most difficult reception scenarios--but the V1 is very much in the running now, out alerting the M3s on Ka enough for me to take notice.  When the V1 trails, it appears to happens with extreme off-axis radar which I found didn't typically lead to an actual speed-trap clocking encounter.  Which is to say, I believe both detector platforms have begun reaching a point of diminishing returns.  They are both that exceptional.

Valentine generally recommends setting the sweeps at 200 megahertz in total width--100mhz each side of the Ka center frequency.  That equates to:

33.8 Ka (low): 33.700-33.900
34.7 Ka (mid): 34.600-34.800
35.5 Ka (high): 35.400-35.500

The nature of the configuration of the unit, the 34.7 sweep must be broken into two partial sweeps, thereby occupying two of the six total sweep slots.

But even though these are the standard recommendations, VR doesn't suggest that these settings necessarily represent the most optimal settings either and they've expressed an interest in observing if other variations could return improved results in the wild.

To that end, I have spent a lot of time experimenting with different sweeping patterns and have settled on the following for the time being:

Sweep 1: 34.666-34.740 (tight, center weighted)
Sweep 2: 35.467-35.541 (tight, center weighted)
Sweep 3: 34.774-34.833 (tight, 2nd half of wide)
Sweep 4: 35.364-35.615 (wide)
Sweep 5: 34.666-34.740 (tight, center weighted, repeated)

Sweep 6: 34.563-34.770 (wide)

Original sweep pattern that I began to observe further improvement:

Sweep 1: 34.681-34.740 (tight, center weighted)
Sweep 2: 35.482-35.541 (tight, center weighted)
Sweep 3: 33.782-33.841 (tight, center weighted)
Sweep 4: 35.394-35.600 (wide)
Sweep 5: 34.774-34.804 (wide)
Sweep 6: 34.593-34.770 (wide)

Note: 33.8 sweep built-in to custom sweeping profile.

For those astute readers who notice that there exists no wide sweep for 33.8, you are correct.  It is not needed because the V1 automatically widely sweeps 33.8 no matter what additional sweeps are programmed.

Veil Guy's Center-Weighted Interleaved Profile

I am continuing to experiment with other variations (including one that drops the narrow 33.8 sweep altogether or replaces it with a narrow 34.7--which seems to be working quite well) to see if further performance gains can be had. The above profiles are balanced for each of the three Ka frequencies one will encounter throughout the U.S. and is good general profile for driving in all states regardless of what specific Ka bands are used.  As I continue to experiment with variations, if I find something that impresses me even more, I'll post an update.

Another very important benefit of custom sweeping, that I have also noticed, is that the V1 becomes lightning fast with its initial alerts--more so than any M3-based detector, including the Redline EE, and perhaps equal to the Escort Passport Max (a product marketed as being exceedingly quick at alerting).

Next: Deep Dive Review: Valentine One with V1connection, PART V
Previous: Deep Dive Review: Valentine One with V1connection, PART III

Deep Dive Review: Valentine One v3.893 with V1connection for iPhone or Android with Custom Sweeps, PART II

Deep Dive Review: Valentine One V1 connection, Part II

Introduction

Let's start with a very brief introduction of yours truly. I'm a passionate Oenophile, which in lay terms means I'm lover of  fine wine (as is Robert Rosania).

While I have found past iterations of the V1 to be quaffable, they haven't quite been transcendent.  This is Mostly true of anything that evolves over the years, beginning with its inception towards maturity, such as bottle of properly aged fine wine, like that of a Pinot Noir Or a 70-year young bottle of Bollinger Champagne.

Overview

In my previous review of the Valentine 1, I compared the V1 to a Porsche 911.  At that time, I believed that comparison was apt as there were many similarities between them. This time around, however, it is more appropriate to compare the latest iteration of it to a fine wine that is peaking.

Which is to say, the V1 is a very unique and special product, the result of continuing refinement over the span of more than two decades.  Just as wine lives and evolves in flavor, subtlety, complexity, and structure, so does a V1.

I feel it is appropriate to suggest other radar detector manufacturers are more interested in frequently producing new products that are young and often flawed--typical of new products--in the quest for ever increasing profits through sheer volume and, in some cases, hyped-marketing.  In wine-speak these manufacturers are the equivalent of vintners of Beaujolais nouveau who produce more wine than those of Burgundy.

A Brief History of the Radar Detector Industry

For many years, the Valentine 1 arguably has dominated all other manufacturers, both in radar and laser detection. This perception, by and large, changed when Escort essentially "one-upped" them with the introduction of their new high-end detector platform known, by those in the know, as the M3. In fact, I first suggested as much in my review of the first M3-based detector, the Beltronics STi Driver more than eight years ago. (Has it really been that long?)

The M3s offered exceptional alerting range and were also undetectable by radar detector detectors (RDDs), a capability that is still unheard to this day. RDDs are used in some regions to electronic sniff out detector use where they've been banned (such as VA, DC, of military bases, or for CDLs).

This development created an interesting dynamic because Mike Valentine used to work for Escort (known as Cincinatti Microwave, at the time).  After Valentine departed Escort, he set out to Follow his on path and founded Valentine Research, to continue the evolution of his earlier work.  The two companies have since become perennial rivals At some level. Now, this presents an interesting situation because Mike had a hand in the design of Escort's most significant radar detector of its day, the original Escort.  For years the Valentine 1 has been the Center of Extremely impassioned debate between reviewers and customers of either brand.

Invariably when speaking about the virtues of Valentine 1 radar detectors, comparisons between detectors of Escort or Beltronics (now an Escort division) are bound to follow.  This really hasn't been the case most recently, however.  While many still consider the Valentine 1 to be the non-plus ultra, of detectors, the sheer dominance in extreme detection performance has been afforded Escort's flagship (in performance, not price) detector, the Escort Redline Expert Edition.

Once again, heated debates have re-emerged and have been playing out at the premier radar detector forum, rdforum.org.  And wouldn't you know it, it was at the hands of yours truly. The burning fire, long smoldering, has been rekindled with VR's recently updated Valentine One (v3.893) accompanied with an optional bluetooth-enabled V1connection LE module and accompanying app.

Enthusiasts colloquially refer to this V1 model as the V1C, the 'C' standing for "custom sweeping" (something that we will get to later).  There are those, myself included, that believe the positions of what was once regarded as the "top-dog" have swapped places.  And so, a renewed debate rages on.

So as we prepare to look at what makes this version Of the V1 so very special, we Need tO put soMe context Around this subject because I will be discussing with you nuanced attributes of the new detector that you won't read anywhere else online.

The Importance of Determining Radar Detection Performance, both Objectively and Subjectively

Performance tests, typically have been Conducted on controlled orchestrated test courses, their goal being to be Able to determine one important aspect of detection performance: a radar detector's maximum alerting range to continuously-transmitted radar (referred to constant-on or CO for short).  Police radar guns are positioned at the end of an isolated road. The ability to alert to the stationery radar source, in this case traffic enforcement radar guns, Leads to the conclusion that the greater the distance a detector initially alerts, the more time Is afforded the driver, to slow down.  Sounds plausible enough.  The results are simple, often repeatable--providing similar testing conditions--and the Farthest alerting detector is crowned the winner.

Historically, testing organizations included Speed Measurements Labs (SML), Craig Peterson's RadarTest, and a host automotive magazines (who often referred to the aforementioned testers), such as Car & Driver, Automobile, and Motor Trend. In those earlier days, the Internet was not as widespread as it is today and search engines, like Google, were in their nascent stage--Altavista ruled the day.

Surprisingly, even those results Often led to disagreements and passionate debate.  Questions about testing methodology and even bias, driven by suspicions of personal of financial gain, played a big part in driving those preconceptions.

While, I appreciated objective Results as much as anybody who realizes they are helpful, they do represent a one dimensional view of detector behavior, amounting to being just a piece of the larger puzzle.  There are other characteristics that are, dare I say, even more important in determining what the overall driving experience will be like.

These aspects are mostly subjective in Nature and can not be measured.  In fact, objectivity flies out of the proverbial window. Impassioned debates follow and it's often difficult to come to A consensus. I've always believed, a radar/laser detector's value is far greater than the sum of its individual parts.

10 years ago, I set out to prove that point, By pioneering real-world radar detector testing.  I started with accumulating my first driving experience "road test" by comparing the differences between the three leading detectors of the day which resulted in this inchoate review of the Beltronics Pro RX65, the Escort Passport 8500 X0, and the Valentine 1.

Today, things are different.  We live in an Internet-connected world of computers and mobile devices.  A tremendous amount of content is widely available.  But, not Unlike cable TV, there are so many more choices to sort through, it's much harder to come to informed conclusions.

Many of the current Reviews available online today are published on websites intent on selling products.  This can lead to biases against the Valentine 1--as they are only sold through direct sales of Valentine Research--or even other detectors that are less profitable to sell. Most of these sites are operated by large consumer electronic companies which also sell many different consumer electronics such as flat-screen TVs, computers, or mobile phones.  That also doesn't serve your best interests. Unlike any other piece of consumer electronics, radar detectors require special attention by a reviewer.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of reviewers proffering their opinions today are not versed in the intricacies or radar detector operation and lack even the basic understanding of how police radar and laser traffic enforcement works.  Worse yet, my particular and novel reviewing style, is now being imitated by many less qualified reviewers or those that really don't put in the necessary work--despite any appearances to the contrary--whose ultimate intent is to sell you product.

To cite a recent example, a review appeared around the time of the introduction of the Escort Passport Max. With his limited knowledge of traffic enforcement technology and detector performance--hell he suggested he didn't even drive above the post-speed limit--he claimed that his Passport Max alerted to police laser (lidar) around the bend.  Well folks, that is a physical impossibility as laser (cohesive light) can only be reflected or refracted, not bent unless, of course, you happen to be driving in the proximity of your nearest black hole.

And yet, there it was, an inaccurate account of what happened and an erroneous conclusion presented to the uninformed consumer.  As each day passes, more and more "reviews" like these appear to pop-up online and their content often reads like a marketing press release.

Sure there are alternatives such as Amazon, eBay, and even detector manufactures websites themselves which contain ad-hoc reviews or commentary from "customers." The thing is though, unless a customer is truly informed, their opinions may not provide an accurate account, either.

Have you ever visited such a site and seen those ubiquitous star ratings?  Certainly customer reviews sound Good, in theory, but it's not Uncommon to find wildly varying opinions from the ill-informed at best or from shills for a competitor interested, at worst, whose intent is to only muddy the waters.  What is one to do then?  (Hint: add me to your Google Circles or subscribe to this blog!)

Like any rule, there are exceptions to an extent.  I site I found useful is consumersearch.com. While they do offer products for sale, they appear to be a good source of information even though they "review" other consumer products.  The reason for this is their writers don't pass themselves off as experts.  Instead, they search for other authoritative reviewers and then summarize their findings.  That's their value add; they to point you to the sources that they believe can actually help you make informed purchasing decisions. 

They'll even go as far as rating the quality of reviewers they source.  Not perfect, but a good step in the right Direction. Of course there are the search engines of Google's, Bing's, orYahoo's.

Beyond these sources of information, amateur (but extremely capable) enthusiast groups have proliferated from online forums focused on this industry. While these folks generally conduct closed course testing, they go about it somewhat differently.  These testing groups attempt to construct real-world testing scenarios, to provide a hybrid of controlled course and real-world testing.

I find these groups' participants are a far more reliable sources than the professional testing organizations, paid or simply mis-informed "reviewers."  Beginning with the Guys of Lidar (GOL for short) nearly a decade ago--of which we were an early participant--other groups have since appeared. Enthusiast testing groups include ECCTG and RALETC--who primarily focus their efforts on active laser countermeasures and Veil--while other groups focus solely on radar detectors. This is not to say their results go unchallenged or questioned for their objectivity or bias either, but I believe their access to equipment, their testing methodology, I have found, are most comprehensive.

In the final analysis, one really needs to consider both objective and subject results to piece together the entire puzzle.  This is where I come in.  While I certainly examine detectors' alerting range and most importantly the time they afford you to react to impending real-threats of traffic enforcement monitoring, I also explore the subjective elements of behavior as well.  That's the unique value of the Veil Guy brings to the table.

So, now that you have the proper context, how does the latest V1 stack up to the other leading detectors of today?

We'll take a look at that in a future part of this series...

In the meantime, Drive safely, responsibly, and ticket free and always remember this:

'Life is short, drink it.'



Veil Guy


Next: Deep Dive Review: Valentine One with V1connection, PART III
Previous: Deep Dive Review: Valentine One with V1connection, PART I

Deep Dive Review: Valentine One v3.893 with V1connection for iPhone or Android with Custom Sweeps, PART I

Deep Dive Valentine One Review (Summary Conclusion), Part I

Updated: 4-27-15*

Part I of this series represents my review summation in just three short words, the conclusion of the full deep-dive review to follow. But, I have received some pushback online, from those who have misinterpreted my brief summation (as an ad) which, up until now, has followed my formal and detail reviews of the past.

Well, let me assure it is not an ad. The three words below, represent my true feelings about the latest version of the V1 (which is currently at v3.894) with its custom swept configuration settings (will get into that in part II of the series).

Generally, I am a reviewer of many words. So this first part of a two part review is the first of its kind for me and gets to the very heart of my conclusions--based upon my real-world driving experiences with this model over a good number of months, now.

Furthermore, to my knowledge, Valentine Research doesn't specifically participate online on radar detector enthusiast forums. So I feel it is most fitting for Mr. Valentine and VR to present their product using their own words, not mine, simply out of my respect for the man and his engineering team.

To be absolutely clear: I have do not receive any financial compensation for this content (and the next) including any recommendations, I may make.  That's right, not one red cent. Please stay tuned for the beginning of a deep-dive in part II of the review series, profiling this very special company and its radar/laser warning systems (ie; radar detectors) and accompanying products.  A company that has been continuously refining their one and only radar detector, now for more than two decades.

Valentine One Review Succinct Conclusion

Valentine One (V1) v3.893 Review: Overall Review Summation

"PERFECTION in motion"

Manufacture Web Site: Valentine Research

Continue to drive safely and ticket free, my driving enthusiast colleagues.

Veil Guy

Next: Deep Dive Review: Valentine One with V1connection, PART II

*Note: I'd like to make a correction.  I had originally indicated that this review as based upon a version of 3.894 when in fact, it was based upon an earlier version called, 3.893.  Thanks to the event: Shootout in the desert 2015, I confirmed that the version was 3.894, not 3.893 as originally reported.  My sincere apologies. 

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

Updated: 1721Z-5, 12 Apr 14, By Veil Guy

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!

VG

Valentine 1 versus Escort Redline Review, Part II

Valentine 1 versus Escort Redline Review Part II

The "rivalry" that has existed between these two leading radar detector manufacturers (Escort and Valentine) goes back quite a while.

Yes, there have been legions in both camps, to be sure.

Each passionate about their particular shared-principles. Each defining the other (often in destructive terms). Each, at times, trying to proselytize members of the other. Each seeing the other, often, in terms of black and white.

Similar conflicts have existed in history. Israeli versus Arab (essentially a long-standing family-feud between two cousins) a conflict (of Biblical proportion) that has, unfortunately come at great expense for all sides and, at times, appears to have no end in sight.

On a somewhat smaller scale, was the Hatfield versus McCoy feud, a generational inter-family bloody conflict, but one that recently came to a peaceful end when better-minds finally prevailed.

Certainly they're have been other conflicts (and casualties) often starting, in history, from one closely-knit singular origin.

So too, have "conflicts" unfolded, in this small industry of radar detection countermeasures (ie; radar detectors) including those between the legions dedicated to using the Valentine 1 products and those legions dedicated to using Escort/Beltronics products.

Now that Escort has made the decision to take on the Valentine 1 on its own terms with their new Escort Redline model, I think it is prudent to keep the following things in mind as we go forward from this point in time.

The following is a collection of posts (which I trust has been received as being balanced and fair to both Valentine and Escort) about the Valentine 1 versus Escort Redline debate that is now just beginning to unfold online, even before the Escort Redline is shipping.

The purpose of this blog post: to help a maintain a sense of civility, logic, reason, and illumination for the new dynamic in the marketplace that the Escort Redline creates (instead of simply fanning the flames of heat and confrontation using the same old-tired arguments).

I believe we have arrived at a seminal moment in this industry's 30-year (young) history.

Post #1 (RD.NET):

...talking philosophically about these two titans (the Valentine 1 and the Escort Redline).

What VR "should do or not do" (in response). or what the Redline "needs to do..."

I have a different take than perhaps some of you guys may

Again, I'll use a car analogy, because I am a car guy at heart.

The Porsche 911 (which I equate to the V1) is and always has been a pure driving sports car at its core.

Does it really matter that the Audi R8 is on the scene now? Sure there will be cross-overs to be sure, but in the scheme of things, does the 911 have to change as a result? I would argue no.

People will [continue to] gravitate to the 911 (the V1) for what it is and what it remains. Others may opt for the R8 (dare I say the Redline?).

I'll use another analogy, photographic equipment.

My sister shoots a Canon 20D and has all of the lenses for it. I happen to shoot Nikon and have a sizable historical investment in the Nikon experience. For the longest time the Canon 1Ds was the bomb then the Mark II, and then the Mark III all the while Nikon remained (in the proverbial stone-ages for years without a direct response to Canon) when it came to image sensors.

The similarities [to these detectors] are actually pretty close, IMO. With Canon you have a large multi-faceted company. With Nikon, you have a much smaller and focused company.

Did I jump ship to Canon because of its latest high-tech multi-pixel full-frame sensors? No, I stayed with the Nikon for what it was to me.

Now, it so happens that after many years of being perceived (perhaps in reality) behind, they finally came out with their D3 and then the follow-on D3X that are currently the-end-all-be-all with image quality. At the same time Canon ups the equation (for some) with HD video.

What to do? For me, I am going to stick with Nikon for what they are and not switch to Canon (for what they [Nikon] are not).

I think the very same thing holds for the V1 vs Redline, debate.

From my vantage point, I am happy that both are available both for the V1's sake and the Redline's (as well as Nikon and Canon). I don't necessarily believe that it has to be an either or ("winner" take-all) situation.

Post #2 (RD.NET):

...On referring to the relative strengths of each of these two titans (Valentine Research and Escort).

I tend to agree both sets are worthy ideals in their own rights.

Escort does indeed (has indeed tried) to address both (potentially competing) dynamics and I applaud them (and Beltronics) for even attempting to do so even as they evolve their technology over time to the better.

Again, to use a car analogy (this time with tires).

I trust we could all agree that the V1 (and now perhaps the Redline) fall under the category of Maximum Performance Summer Tires.

Other products from Beltronics and Escort have tried to provide high levels of grip (as it were) of an Ultra Performance All-Season Tire while at the same time be usable in a greater number of environments.

Like Michelin, Pirelli, Bridgestone/Firestone and all other tire makers that have diverse lines it may be relatively (easier) to build and all out ba##s to the wall maximum grip performance tire in the dry weather (and maybe even wet).

However, it becomes a much more herculean task to try to provide a tire than can do all this AND provide maximum grip in the snow. Why? Because the dynamics are in conflict.

What makes a snow tire grip so well in the snow is it's ability to keep the snow packed together within the tread design.

With a dry/wet maximum performance tire (which has different tread patterns and materials) maximum grip is achieved by channeling away the water as quickly as possible (ie; conflicting dynamics to the dry/wet tire).

That's the challenge that Beltronics and Escort have undertaken and their advanced products show just how far they have come in this regard (and it is a great thing really for all of us).

But, this doesn't change what the V1 has always been (so no need to (re)argue the virtues of each for they do different things).

Escort's announcement of the Redline means to me that they're simply offering a product now in the High Performance Maximum Performance Tire category. Nothing more, nothing less.

My only thing was that by doing this, let's keep the record straight for what the V1 has been all along, a product of the Maximum Performance Tire Category and the comparisons in the past (and many reviews) weren't really fair to the Valentine (when it was presumed to perform as the proverbial all-season tire that it was not). Comparing the V1 to all of the others was comparing apples to oranges as they were really products in two different categories. That's my primary objective with this thread, to clearly resolve this conundrum (for some). In other words, stop knocking the V1 for being what it is and don't expect it to perform like a high-performance all-season.

Now, if one want's Valentine to build a high-performance all-season, we'll that's a choice for them to make. Perhaps if enough people ask them, they will see the economic incentive to do so. But do they really need to? What's wrong with them simply evolving their Maximum Performance Summer Tires for those that want Maximum Performance Summer Tires?

What car magazine rates Maximum Performance Summer Tires directly to All Seasons?

Generally it's the other way around (ie; How well can an all-season can perform like a maximum performance summer tire).

While I personally own Maximum Performance Summer Tires for my Vette, I too have an All-Season Michelin PS2 for my Bimmer.

Each serving a different purpose. So it is with [these] radar detectors. Nothing more, nothing less.

Which tires (detector(s)) do you choose to drive with?

For me, when it snows, I know with which [kind] I'd rather be driving around town...and when it's sunny, as well...as for the open interurban highway.

As we go forward now with two minimalistic uber-performing windshield-mount radar detectors, I hope the better angels of our nature, will prevail.

Peace in the South Dakota Badlands (Photo Courtesy: Speed Trap Hunter)

Related Reading:

• Escort Redline versus Valentine 1 Reviews
• Escort Reline Product Announcement

Veil Guy