Results - 2,400 Miles Running V1 G1 and V1 G2 Side by Side

[Heywood]

I have to agree with @Vortex, @samq45, and the others.

It’s fun to run any 2 detectors for shits and giggles. Curiosity sake. That’s about it.

I would put very little stock in any tests, or claims, of how well any detector worked where 2 detectors were running together. Stealth or not.

 

[samq45]

With all due respect, and I intend that sincerely, when it comes to Radio Frequency signals, we generally prefer to deal with knowns, rather than speculation, guess, conjecture, maybes, or possibilities. Here is what we know:

1) The strength of emitted signals from RDs have been dropping with each successive generation, making them less and less detectable. This new generation (G2 and RL360) appear to have extremely low emissions.

2) The strength of an RD emitted signal will generally depend upon the vector, i.e. direction. One would normally expect to see the most emitted signal from the antennas (front and rear), because that is where the emitted signal mostly escapes the RD.

3) The amount of signal emitted from the **side** is expected to be orders of magnitude lower than from the front or rear antennae. This is because the case acts as a "shield" keeping external signals out and internal signals in. This is called "shielding".

4) If one detector is emitting a signal on a RD frequency, then we expect the other detector to alert. (That is why we have them, right?) However, that did not seem to happen in my G1/G2 test. I had long intervals of no alerts. So.........

5) If the RD was emitting a non-RD frequency and thereby merely raising the noise floor, then we would expect a decreased signal to noise ratio, which typically shows up as reduced range. But that did not seem to happen in this particular test. My ranges seemed fairly consistent with results by other testers using a single detector methodology.

6) I certainly can't speak for a RL360, because it was not part of the test. So as for the RL360, I must defer to others.

I run 3 detectors at times and almost always run a remote and a dashmount (since the O was released in 2007/8). Its fine to run them together for the fun of it, but any results are taken with a grain of salt. Its not the greatest way of comparing the detectors, but it is fun - and noisy. After 6 months with the Magnum and O I thought the same as you - these things are fine to run together. Then over the years I have seen several weird items and when I finally started testing them in a controlled environment, I could see that although it was rare between those detectors, they can and do cause issues with each other, you never know when. Biggest fear with two detectors is not missing C/O - but a weak I/O shot.

1 - Each successive generation has had better reception - so as the emissions MAY have decreased, the sensitivity of the detectors have negated this or even made it worse. The reason I saw "may" is that emissions detected by the Spectres may be low(er), but there are other emissions the Spectre does not look for. Plus 40 feet for a Spectre is not the same as 3 feet for a V1G2, the V1G2 is a lot more sensitive than the horn in the Spectre.

2 - The windshield attenuates the signal and some is bounced by the glass around your cabin, plus all the metal in the detector and horn bounces that signal all over - it not like a laser or a beam or light - lots of reflections - and sometimes those reflections team up to cause an issue. Do a stew test with a weak signal and you can see where behind your windshield it may not alert, but holding it outside it alerts to one bar.

3 - You are saying no emissions are possible through the side? What about the back horn leakage, the metal shell of the car (faraday cage - your cars rubber tires dont protect you from a lightning strike, its because the car is acting like a faraday cage) the signals from the front and rear are bouncing all around the car and even combining them and causing harmonics. Why does the V1G2 alert to the RL360c when both detectors are facing the same direction separated by a few feet? those signals are bouncing everywhere.

4 - Absolutely not, I do not expect it to alert when the filtering is working and the detector knows its a bad signal or can determine its a harmonic of another signal. Ka filtering does this and some detectors you cannot turn it all off - RDR off on the Escorts for a filtering example (why do they have that feature? so it does not alert to a Ka signal). These detectors are receiving a lot of signals they filter out. Ill let you borrow my Bel 980 and you can see a lot more Ka signals that it alerts to, but newer detectors filter them out. Satellite Dish?

Lets take an easy example - a cobra radar detector. With the filtering on the Escorts can see that the signal in the Ka range is actually the 3rd Harmonic from the Cobra LO. V1 has taken a different approach and has the J out if the detector is not sure that there is a cobra, but when it does figure it out, the detector does not alert even with the signal received. The V1 does not alert to the most part to junk detectors, but the signal is there to see.

5 - Please look up harmonics and how signal waves can combine. Also there is a thread today that someone is complaining about getting a signal from a Mercedes. the theory posted was that the detector is alerting to the 1/2 harmonic of the system. Non RD frequencies can have their frequencies chopped up or added together to be in the range the detector is looking for.

I dont know how anyone can determine that your ranges are similar to them running by themselves without a controlled test. You would need many repeated runs against a fixed source to see an issue. LEOs running enforcement are not a good gauge as I have learned myself. I found the best testing is a set of 6 34.7 speed signs that I drive by quite often.

You have only been running them for 2400 miles, try it for another year or two and you will eventually see some weird items.
Keep reporting back and have fun. You can see the forum members responding to me in a similar way when I compared the O with the Sti. Many said my tests were invalid and did not believe that the O was beating the Sti by 10 secs or more. I get why they were reluctant to accept that with two detectors.

 

[MASI]

I would put very little stock in any tests, or claims, of how well any detector worked where 2 detectors were running together. Stealth or not.

Given the paucity of objective data on actual RF emissions of current RD leaders, I think this is a curious position to take. Perhaps others have seen actual measured RF emissions using a 35 GHz spectrum analyzer, but I can't find any. Until we see such objective data, any suggestion of cross-talk or interference is little more than speculation or conjecture. Likewise, occasional anecdotal reports of "weird" things are no better.

I would like to see more objective side by side testing. What do we have to lose?
I realize this may upset some long held (but as yet unsupported) beliefs, but isn't that the purpose of objective and repeat testing?

Any single test is just one test - including mine. But that is the reason multiple tests are done, to validate other testing.

 

[Fauxshowpony]

Thanks for the feedback. Im getting killed by BSMs w my V1G1 so i have to upgrade. I dont trust it anymore even though real performance is still good

 

[catch1147]

Thanks for the feedback also. I've been running an R3 and V1G1 together for a long time now with no apparent problems. One of the reasons I haven't purchased an R7 or V1G2 yet, while waiting for Theia to come on board.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

 

[cihkal]

Thanks for the feedback. Im getting killed by BSMs w my V1G1 so i have to upgrade. I dont trust it anymore even though real performance is still good

I hope the same goes for you as to my G2 experience.

I got mine and was like damn thing is quiet. Then I was like holy damn this thing is really quiet in factory default settings, like nothing I've ever driven with before.

What are BSMs? Hahaha!

This is coming from a guy who lives on Chicago's North Side, and has roughly 2 hours of commute time everyday!

I actually don't even use an app, just the occasional mute button tap for mostly, redlight cameras.

Not saying your situation will turn into mine, but hopefully a dramatically improves!

 

[Boozehound]

I think the OP's informal review has value. At the same time I have zero doubt in regards to interference from running multiple RDs. I regularly run a G2 in a car with front/rear NRDSP. Before the G2 I ran a G1 the same way. There's quite a lot of separation between the remote units and the V1. With the G1 I'd occasionally see a KA false that I'm not seeing with G2. One might have expected the opposite results: G1 is a known strong emitter but NRDSP is not. Without lab equipment and a controlled environment there are many uncertainties. Anecdotally I've never observed any lack of range from any of these systems running together. I've also never run a stew test and that would be interesting.

 

[MASI]

In field testing is far from perfect and has many inherent flaws that many people do not recognize.
Conversely, lab testing (with a 40 Ghz spectrum analyzer like the HP 8363) is the best objective method, because it controls the variables that can't be controlled in the field. In the lab, we can ensure that we control all the variables from one test to another. However, its extremely difficult to do that in the field, especially on a public road! That is where multiple field testing, with multiple methodologies comes in.

I would point out that testing an RD, one at a time, on an open road, with multiple runs, has inherent flaws and imperfections. For example: moving cars and trucks on the road during serial testing create moving signal "shields" and "reflectors" that can dramatically change the signal path (and strength) from run to run. The wind can also move signs and shrubs. These are just a few of the reasons that various in field tests see "outlier" performance, where one RD or another had a surprisingly long (or short) detection range. These "outlier" detections are not likely due to an inconsistency in the RD. They are most likely due to inconsistencies (changes) in the signal path from run to run. i.e. moving cars, trucks, and/or wind. Therefore testing in the real world has its own set of real flaws.

The way the professional and commercial RF (radio Frequency) industry measurers receiver performance is in the lab, with a calibrated signal generator and spectrum analyzer. Receiver performance is primarily judged by sensitivity (generally in microvolts), signal to noise ratio (S/N in dB), Spurious output (in frequency and amplitude) and selectivity for a given frequency range. (There are other measurements, but these are the core). Everybody in the RF industry know this.

Unfortunately, these types of stats for RD's don't appear to be in the public domain. The equipment for such measurements going way up to 35 Ghz is very expensive.

I just wish there was a way to conclusively say that in a particular setup, there is no interference of any kind happening period. That'd be amazing.

Fortunately, there is a way!

We just need some 40 Ghz hardware like the HP 8363 or something similar. I would venture a guess that Valentine, Escort, Radenso, and many university level EE labs have such capabilities. Measurement of the sensitivity and spectral output of various RDs is not very complicated. You just gotta have the RF hardware and some basic measurement expertise.

 

[ARkaband]

Fortunately, there is a way!

We just need some 40 Ghz hardware like the HP 8363 or something similar. I would venture a guess that Valentine, Escort, Radenso, and many university level EE labs have such capabilities.

 

[samq45]

Fortunately, there is a way!

We just need some 40 Ghz hardware like the HP 8363 or something similar. I would venture a guess that Valentine, Escort, Radenso, and many university level EE labs have such capabilities. Measurement of the sensitivity and spectral output of various RDs is not very complicated. You just gotta have the RF hardware and some basic measurement expertise.

Since the radar detector MFGs have done these tests and told us many times that they do and will interfere at times, its probably best to take their advice since they have the fancy equipment. Why does anyone need to sped this kind of money when you can simply test them separately?

Regardless of how you spin it, test results with two detectors will always be minimized in favor of tests with one detector. This has been discussed for years, especially when the Sti Driver cam out, 15 years ago.

Not many people really care about 2 detectors and if they interfere anyway, just us few that run the combos. The vast majority of people want to see tests with one detector running at a time, they don't care about 2, it just causes another variable introduced into the testing. 2 detectors is just all for some fun and anecotodtal discussions.

Why do we need a $100K worth of equipment, when its easier to test each detector separately and the results are are much more accepted?

 

[MASI]

Did you notice that the RD in the test was ***not*** one of the latest generation of RDs?
It was not a G2 or RL360c. It was a previous generation detector with much higher levels of spurious output. So nobody should be surprised that previous generations of RDs put out enough RF to be problematic. But the G2 and the 360c are new generations, with much lower spurious outputs.

If you want to base your opinions on fact and not subjective gut impressions based upon previous generations, that is most assuredly your prerogative. Me, I would prefer to base conclusions on facts and data. For example, what is the DbM level output of a G2 or RL 360c? If such data exists, it does not appear to be in the pubic domain. Such data, when combined with testing would answer this newly presented question.

Just because it was a problem with previous generations, do not automatically make it so for new generations. This is because new generations of RDs have much lower emissions.

 

[samq45]

Did you notice that the RD in the test was ***not*** one of the latest generation of RDs?
It was not a G2 or RL360c. It was a previous generation detector with much higher levels of spurious output. So nobody should be surprised that previous generations of RDs put out enough RF to be problematic. But the G2 and the 360c are new generations, with much lower spurious outputs.

If you want to base your opinions on fact and not subjective gut impressions based upon previous generations, that is most assuredly your prerogative. Me, I would prefer to base conclusions on facts and data. For example, what is the DbM level output of a G2 or RL 360c? If such data exists, it does not appear to be in the pubic domain. Such data, when combined with testing would answer this newly presented question.

Just because it was a problem with previous generations, do not automatically make it so for new generations. This is because new generations of RDs have much lower emissions.

Really??

Why do you assume these newer detectors are lower than previous detectors, like the the OG Redline, 9500ci, Stir Plus etc?

Jon used those detectors to prove a point more easily, but the point is still valid with all detectors. There are other posts and videos, if you chose to research.

You also did not make that argument when you were running your V1G1 with the G2. Your fist argument is that since they did not beep at each other, there cannot be interference (Jon's #2 explanation indicated why this is not true) . Then your argument evolved and you now know more than a MFG. You sound a lot like Veil Guy with his 2 m3s argument (that was proven wrong by a member here) and you know how we hold VG in high regard here.

What I am surprised at is the way people have shown you that there is a problem, you argue in one direction and hit a dead end and now you are saying you must know more about this than a MFG and they are using old detectors where the new ones wont do this.

You mention the V1G2 and the RL360c in the latest post - A few of us already told you the V1G2 will alert to the RL360c, on a regular basis as Jon has shown in his video. If you don't believe us - go buy one and try them together.

Those are 2 new ones that you mentioned, so how does that affect your theory? Those two still interfere with each other in the same cabin. My V1G2 range was diminished a few times and I no longer will run them together.

They all have the potential to interfere, why is that so hard to accept? Its not like there is a lot of new technology like patch antennas being used - the design is very similar to a detector 20 years ago. Rather than arguing about this - go ahead and show us how we (and all the people who make these things) are wrong.

 

[NorEaster18]

Dude, just because the "facts" are ones you believe, doesn't mean they are true. Like @samq45 said, your argument is all over the place. It's a common theme around here to say, "it's just one test." Based on what we know from multiple tests (not just Radenso's test cited above), running multiple detectors at a time causes issues. You would need multiple tests under multiple different conditions to confirm that they in fact do not interfere with each other. But you're coming in, stating "they don't interfere," calling it a fact (which is completely baseless), and then arguing with people about it when they try to present to you the information we do have as fact.

We know you're going to vehemently disagree with anything someone from Radenso says, although I'm not sure any of us know why you have so much disdain for them. You're questioning testing methodology in another thread while stating opinions as facts here. It's all over the place and it's really not a good look.

We have one of the largest databases of radar detector knowledge anywhere right here on this forum. That is something so awesome to be a part of. We aren't trying to be jerks to you. I promise, I don't intend to sound like a jerk with this reply. But you've really got to read the room. We all aren't out to get you and your "facts," but it goes both ways.

 

[LouG]

I know why he as such disdain for them, as have I. I would not give credibilty to a word from them.
I'd much rather see tests from non vested interests.

 

[MASI]

Why do you assume these newer detectors are lower than previous detectors, like the the OG Redline, 9500ci, Stir Plus etc?

My friend, Its not an assumption.

The newest generation of detectors (V1G2 and RL360c) have much lower emissions than previous generations. If you doubt this fact, you need only see that the RD detection distances by a Spectra Elite (a radar detector detector or RD-D) have dropped dramatically with the new generation. For example, the V1G2 can't be detected until the RD-D gets within about 3 feet! Older generations were detectable at much greater distances. (That is why LE purchased them).

Remember, the strength of an RF signal degrades rapidly with distance. In fact, signal intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance! Its not a linear degradation. Thus, a small change in RD-D distance represents a huge reduction in signal strength emitted from the RD.

Its a brave new world!

 

[ARkaband]

My friend, Its not an assumption.

The newest generation of detectors (V1G2 and RL360c) have much lower emissions than previous generations. If you doubt this fact, you need only see that the RD detection distances by a Spectra Elite (a radar detector detector or RD-D) have dropped dramatically with the new generation. For example, the V1G2 can't be detected until the RD-D gets within about 3 feet! Older generations were detectable at much greater distances.

Remember, the strength of an RF signal degrades rapidly with distance. In fact, signal intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance! Its not a linear degradation. Thus, a small change in RD-D distance represents a huge reduction in signal strength emitted from the RD.

Its a brave new world!

Just because the Spectre detects a RD from less range does not necessarily mean the RD is outputting less interfering emissions, it could be outputting interference emissions that are outside of what the Spectre sweeps. The Spectre is not an RF spectrum analyzer and being RDD immune doesn't mean you aren't outputting harmful interference emissions.

 

[MASI]

Just because the Spectre detects a RD from less range does not necessarily mean the RD is outputting less interfering emissions, it could be outputting interference emissions that are outside of what the Spectre sweeps.

If the G2 was emitting outside the RD-D's frequency sweep, then the RD-D would not alert at all. The fact that it alerts confirms that it is detecting the G2 at a lower distance, due to lower emission.

If the G2 were emitting outside of the RD-D's frequency sweep, then it would not alert at all.

 

[ARkaband]

If the G2 was emitting outside the RD-D's frequency sweep, then the RD-D would not alert at all. The fact that it alerts confirms that it is detecting the G2 at a lower distance, due to lower emission.

If the G2 were emitting outside of the RD-D's frequency sweep, then it would not alert at all.

Or, it could be emitting both

 

[NorEaster18]

Or, it could be emitting both

 

[MASI]

Or, it could be emitting both

Well....... I suppose "anything is possible", (i.e., pigs might be able to fly).
But do you have any facts or evidence to support your contention that the latest generation of RDs (G2 and RL 360c) don't have lower emissions than previous generations? The evidence so far is pretty clear is that emissions have dropped, in part due to the LNAs used in the G2, which are right behind the antenna terminations. These LNAs act as "one way" valves, letting RF in, but blocking most of the RF from getting out.

Might, could, possibly, maybe, conceivably......are are all little more than a "guess" or "hunch", without factual evidence or support.

So........ it "could" be that Theia will tell you what type of doughnut the LE ate yesterday, but that too would be speculation -without any supporting evidence.