Comparing ALP Triple vs. Escort Quad (1 Viewer)

Vortex

Making Videos
Administrator
Advanced User
Premium Member
Acceptus
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
42,330
Awards
0
Location
Washington State
So I'm working on a review article for the Radenso RC M right now and something came up that I wanted to get you guys' thoughts on.

I'm comparing the RC M w/ the ALP laser defense kit which comes with ALP triples ($3,050) to the Escort Max Ci 360 with the ShifterMax quads ($3,500).

When it comes to making an apples-to-apples comparison, what's the best way to compare them?

Radenso sells the package to have the three ALP heads installed up front.

The Escort comes with 4 heads. This means you could do two front and two rear if you like. Alternatively, you could also do all 4 heads up front (which I hear Escort is recommending nowadays for DE protection).

Is it fair to compare an ALP triple to an Escort quad? Both are what each company would recommend for maximum jamming capabilities, though that's not including a Tx head up front for the ALP.

Should we add a 4th head to the ALP ($3,200) to make it a level playing field with the Escort, based on solely head count?

I'm basically trying to find the best way to compare both systems on a level playing field.
 

oktavf

Premium RDF Member
Intermediate User
Premium Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2017
Messages
658
Reaction score
641
Awards
0
Location
GA
Seeing a 4th head gets you closer to the same price as the 4 head Escort that would for sure make it more fair in every respect!
 

Vortex

Making Videos
Administrator
Advanced User
Premium Member
Acceptus
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
42,330
Awards
0
Location
Washington State
I think it should be based on which setup each brand recommends that can completely JTG every laser jammer.
Understandable. If that's the case, should we compare the ALP with 2 regular and 1 Tx, not 3 regular heads?

Is it unfair to consider the person who wants a set of quads to install on a smaller vehicle and they don't face the DragonEye, so they could get by just fine with 2 front and 2 rear?
 

TeamQuack

s\/\/er\/e
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
1,781
Reaction score
1,710
Awards
0
Location
NYC
Understandable. If that's the case, should we compare the ALP with 2 regular and 1 Tx, not 3 regular heads?

Is it unfair to consider the person who wants a set of quads to install on a smaller vehicle and they don't face the DragonEye, so they could get by just fine with 2 front and 2 rear?
since the Tx head dropped, that has been ALPs updated solution so i think the Tx/2 Rx should be compared with the quads which is escorts latest product.

On a separate note, should radenso consider selling a version with 2Rx and 1 Tx head rather than 3 Rx? just an idea.
 

Randy at Radenso

Radenso Radar
Advanced User
Premium Member
PREFERRED MFG/Vendor
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
490
Reaction score
1,529
Awards
0
Location
Cincinnati, OH
Understandable. If that's the case, should we compare the ALP with 2 regular and 1 Tx, not 3 regular heads?
Sure, you could even compare both. Even with TX I am pretty sure it is still cheaper than Escort with three sensors. Three regular heads still handle the DragonEye though plus remember most lowered sports cars can’t use TX heads.

Is it unfair to consider the person who wants a set of quads to install on a smaller vehicle and they don't face the DragonEye, so they could get by just fine with 2 front and 2 rear?
I don’t consider it unfair at all plus DragonEye is spreading fairly quickly. I would still want 3 even for areas without DragonEye for peace of mind.
-- Double Post Merged: --
On a separate note, should radenso consider selling a version with 2Rx and 1 Tx head rather than 3 Rx? just an idea.
Our dealers already have the TX head option available to them
 
Last edited:

RINGWAYMAN

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Dec 29, 2012
Messages
290
Reaction score
100
Awards
0
Must jam everything. True test. In my opinion. However, I only run a V1 with no app. with visor clip. Lol. Will run app. soon.
 

Vortex

Making Videos
Administrator
Advanced User
Premium Member
Acceptus
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
42,330
Awards
0
Location
Washington State
Sure, you could even compare both. Even with TX I am pretty sure it is still cheaper than Escort with three sensors. Three regular heads still handle the DragonEye though plus remember most lowered sports cars can’t use TX heads.
hmm, I guess that’s the tricky thing about laser jammers. There’s so many configurations and optimal setups that it’s hard to do a direct comparison as if one size fits all.

With custom installed radar detectors, sure, get it with the front and rear antenna for arrows. Pretty simple.

For laser, it’s tougher to say what is comparable since there are many different optimal setups that are dependent on the situation.
 

RaggedEdge

Premium RDF Member
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2018
Messages
959
Reaction score
2,185
Awards
0
Location
Middle Tennessee
Understandable. If that's the case, should we compare the ALP with 2 regular and 1 Tx, not 3 regular heads?

Is it unfair to consider the person who wants a set of quads to install on a smaller vehicle and they don't face the DragonEye, so they could get by just fine with 2 front and 2 rear?
Fair would be testing front and rear. If you put all 4 escort sensors up front, you are SOL on the rear. So if you live in areas where getting shot in the ass is a real possibility, well...

I'd do 2 escort vs. 3 RX and see what the results are.
 

Stretch

Doing the dash!!!
Intermediate User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
418
Reaction score
506
Awards
0
Location
Miami to Atlanta
I also think it should be what each MFR recommends to be completely JTG. If Escort recommends 4 heads up front to be completely JTG against all including DE then fine, and if ALP says 2 regular and 1 TX is all that is needed (which we know it is) then fine.
No point in leveling the price point if you can get 100% coverage at a cheaper price
 

asleeper

Premium RDF Member
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
1,074
Reaction score
1,778
Awards
0
Location
Virginia
I also think it should be what each MFR recommends to be completely JTG. If Escort recommends 4 heads up front to be completely JTG against all including DE then fine, and if ALP says 2 regular and 1 TX is all that is needed (which we know it is) then fine.
No point in leveling the price point if you can get 100% coverage at a cheaper price
That's my take too, not so much 3 or 4 head Escort vs ALP but what each manufacturer recommends for ideal (or JTG) performance. The TX head is kind of an outlier since Escort doesn't have a similar offering.

@Vortex, another option is each manufacturer's recommended setup/configuration vs the "normal stuff" as opposed to the VPR's (mainly the fire breathing and creepy variants) as head count/placement is more important in the latter category.
 

Tb12

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
190
Reaction score
309
Awards
0
Location
MA
Another vote for 4 escort vs 2rx+1tx. Bonus if you also do a 3 rx version, double bonus for 2 escort. 4 ALP rx may just cause interference and make things worse.
 

Stretch

Doing the dash!!!
Intermediate User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
418
Reaction score
506
Awards
0
Location
Miami to Atlanta
That's my take too, not so much 3 or 4 head Escort vs ALP but what each manufacturer recommends for ideal (or JTG) performance. The TX head is kind of an outlier since Escort doesn't have a similar offering.

@Vortex, another option is each manufacturer's recommended setup/configuration vs the "normal stuff" as opposed to the VPR's (mainly the fire breathing and creepy variants) as head count/placement is more important in the latter category.
Yup exactly. I will say this though... I look at the TX head as a part of the system no matter what the other companies have to offer. Shouldn’t penalize ALP for having the TX head when it comes to comparison just because Escort hasn’t released something similar to compete. A buyer should look at the TX as a plus and say to themselves this company is one step ahead of the game. Instead it should be a negative towards Escort for not having a VPR head unless they can get the same performance from the 4 head set up which goes back to the whole “needed an extra head” comparison
 

asleeper

Premium RDF Member
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
1,074
Reaction score
1,778
Awards
0
Location
Virginia
Yup exactly. I will say this though... I look at the TX head as a part of the system no matter what the other companies have to offer. Shouldn’t penalize ALP for having the TX head when it comes to comparison just because Escort hasn’t released something similar to compete. A buyer should look at the TX as a plus and say to themselves this company is one step ahead of the game. Instead it should be a negative towards Escort for not having a VPR head unless they can get the same performance from the 4 head set up which goes back to the whole “needed an extra head” comparison
There's no comparison of an ALP 2RX/1TX to a 3 (or 4 head) Escort shifters. The aforementioned ALP setup is hands down the best option out there in terms of performance (I don't own either system btw, just a prospective customer that will be upgrading their active CM's in the near future). However, living a banned area (Virginia), fewer heads on your car is better so spending an extra $50 or $100 is worth it for me.
 
Last edited:

Stretch

Doing the dash!!!
Intermediate User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
418
Reaction score
506
Awards
0
Location
Miami to Atlanta
There's no comparison of an ALP 2RX/1TX to a 3 (or 4 head) Escort shifters. The aforementioned ALP setup is hands down the best option out there in terms of performance (I don't own either system btw, just a prospective customer that will be upgrading their active CM's in the near future). However, living a banned area (Virginia), fewer heads on your car is better so spending an extra $50 or $100 is worth it for me.
Great point! Isn’t the ALP set up cheaper than the 4 head Escorts anyway? Lol. I don’t own either I run a quint TMG and I’m patiently waiting on their VPR head as well
 

alloy00

vMax
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
2,579
Reaction score
2,604
Awards
0
In this test, it seems that you want to give each manufacturer the best opportunity to perform the best against the most difficult guns. So I also agree with what seems to be the consensus: don't worry about number of heads, rather, do what it takes to achieve most comprehensive performance. And then compare the pro's & con's: as-tested performance, number of heads required to achieve that performance, price, etc.
 
Last edited:

thanks

for all the fish
Advanced User
Premium Member
Acceptus
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
5,613
Reaction score
6,801
Awards
0
So I'm working on a review article for the Radenso RC M right now and something came up that I wanted to get you guys' thoughts on.

I'm comparing the RC M w/ the ALP laser defense kit which comes with ALP triples ($3,050) to the Escort Max Ci 360 with the ShifterMax quads ($3,500).

When it comes to making an apples-to-apples comparison, what's the best way to compare them?

Radenso sells the package to have the three ALP heads installed up front.

The Escort comes with 4 heads. This means you could do two front and two rear if you like. Alternatively, you could also do all 4 heads up front (which I hear Escort is recommending nowadays for DE protection).

Is it fair to compare an ALP triple to an Escort quad? Both are what each company would recommend for maximum jamming capabilities, though that's not including a Tx head up front for the ALP.

Should we add a 4th head to the ALP ($3,200) to make it a level playing field with the Escort, based on solely head count?

I'm basically trying to find the best way to compare both systems on a level playing field.
With 4 alp heads, you can only still use 3 up front. If you want to compare front only protection for DE (per escort's user 4 up front) , then do the ALP 3 vs Escort 4 up front. Is an escort 2 F 2 R setup realistic?
 
Last edited:

Heywood

Learning Something New, Still Dying Stupid
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
May 12, 2016
Messages
3,273
Reaction score
5,749
Awards
0
Location
Alberta Canada
My take?
With the ALP set up, you can’t or shouldn’t, run 1 head in the back by itself.

A fair test would be 3 ALP RX heads in the front vs a Escort 2 and then 4 head set up in the front only.

We already know the effects of what the TX head will bring, but if that’s the package they’re selling, why not see how the Escorts handle it.

The ALP can be upgraded. The Escort can’t. It would be beneficial to see the results same day, same conditions, same gun test to see how it stacks up.
 

Jon at Radenso

Premium RDF Member
Advanced User
Premium Member
PREFERRED MFG/Vendor
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Messages
1,101
Reaction score
6,903
Awards
0
In the real world, the systems are only sold two ways:

“Do you want front protection, or front and rear protection?”

That is how it should be tested if we want our testing to be informative to users - we should test what is actually being sold. The packages are as follows:

Radenso: 3rx front - which can JTG dragoneye. You do NOT need a TX sensor to JTG dragoneye with 3 RX sensors. A TX is a tool with specific use cases, not ideal for every car. It is an upgrade above and beyond anything Escort has in certain situations, but our base 3 head kit is certainly capable of JTG against everything - as testing has shown.

Escort: 2 sensor front

If you want to test Escort triple and quad systems up front I do think it would be useful just as data points, but keep this in mind - every single Escort customer who purchased the entire front and rear protection is running two heads front, two heads rear. This is most customers. And every single person who purchased ANY configuration of Radenso is running triple head front.

In my mind, it’s this simple.


Radenso:

Do you want front protection? Great, we offer a JTG triple and a TX option
Do you want rear protection? Great, we offer two head base with a TX upgrade to jam Dragoneye if you want maximum protection.

Escort:

Do you want front protection? You can use two heads, which won’t really give you adequate protection. Or you can use three or four heads, but you still won’t get JTG performance and then you can’t use anything in the rear.

Do you want rear protection? Sorry, you can’t have it against challenging guns.
-- Double Post Merged: --
It is interesting to me that nobody has ever tested the fully maxed out systems from manufacturers front and rear. This is how thousands of systems are sold each year. Of course, if that was done it would truly expose the two head performance of K40 and Escort.

Testing is super time intensive so I get why this is the case, but it is a gap missing in the testing that hopefully someone in the community can step up and fill. If you think about it, we are inventing all of these niche scenarios to test but someone who just walked into a dealer and said “give me a maxed out system from Escort” has no testing data how that works.
-- Double Post Merged: --
hmm, I guess that’s the tricky thing about laser jammers. There’s so many configurations and optimal setups that it’s hard to do a direct comparison as if one size fits all.

With custom installed radar detectors, sure, get it with the front and rear antenna for arrows. Pretty simple.

For laser, it’s tougher to say what is comparable since there are many different optimal setups that are dependent on the situation.
This is only the case when it’s someone like us purchasing direct from a manufacturer, which is not how these are generally sold.

To 99% of customers, there are only two configurations - front, or front and rear. The dealer is the one that decides on the specifics, and 99% of dealers just go with that the kits are sold in. For TX sensors, my dealers don’t even tell the customer that there is such a thing as TX or RX. They just size up the car, sell front or front and rear protection, and then install what they determine works best and charge for it.
 
Last edited:

Vortex

Making Videos
Administrator
Advanced User
Premium Member
Acceptus
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
42,330
Awards
0
Location
Washington State
This is really really good stuff. It seems like the consensus is to test the systems as recommended by the manufacturers and installers. On RDF we pick and choose the exact setups and configurations we want, but like @Jon at Radenso said, that's not always how things are done with installers when a customer walks in and asks for laser jammers.

It is interesting to me that nobody has ever tested the fully maxed out systems from manufacturers front and rear. This is how thousands of systems are sold each year. Of course, if that was done it would truly expose the two head performance of K40 and Escort.

Testing is super time intensive so I get why this is the case, but it is a gap missing in the testing that hopefully someone in the community can step up and fill. If you think about it, we are inventing all of these niche scenarios to test but someone who just walked into a dealer and said “give me a maxed out system from Escort” has no testing data how that works.
That's an interesting idea. My car could sorta do that, but I can't really modify the permanently installed configurations very easily.

My ALP setup is pretty optimal. It supports a max of 3 heads up front (not counting dual Tx heads which is really rare and not really needed IMHO) and I had a chance to test both 3 regular and 2 reg + 1 Tx.

The Escort was installed with triples on my vehicle. We talked about the install options at the shop and Escort wanted me to do a 4 head setup up front. I thought about that, but eventually opted for a triple setup since everything else was going to be run as a triple. It probably would have fared better when run as a set of quads and wouldn't leave me with one extra head sitting in the closet doing nothing, but I know people would have complained about the Escort having an unfair advantage if I had run it with the 4th head. That said, I could always unplug the center head and run it as a set of duals which is the max Escort offers for front and rear protection and that's another thing that we could test.

There's even discussion about the Escort with 2 vs 3 vs 4 heads per side. If I could move my center head and try different configurations, I would. :)

The K40 supports 5 heads total, 3 front and 2 rear, so the setup I did running 3 heads up front pretty much is the optimal K40 configuration.

My testing helps fill in most of the gaps and there's a bunch of other tests on the forum showing how the system fares with 2 heards and with 4 so we can piece the different tests together to get an idea of how everything compares.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)

Unregistered User Ad


ATTENTION: Want ads to disappear? Register for an account here - it's free and NO ADS ARE DISPLAYED TO REGISTERED MEMBERS! Thanks!

Donation drives

RDF Server & License Fees (JULY 2019) (ACTIVE)

This donation drive covers the server and licensing fees for RDF for the month of July 2019...
Goal
$643.00
Earned
$105.00
This donation drive ends in

Latest threads

Latest posts

Social Group Activity

Forum statistics

Threads
83,949
Messages
1,256,639
Members
19,481
Latest member
Mikeasajerk
Top