The Big Uniden vs M3 vs V1 vs RPSE Shootout May 16, 2017

fishing66

Advanced User
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
3,796
Reaction score
6,683
Regardless even if you had the least performing R1 or R3 its still above the pack and has better filtering. Uniden really has knocked the Redline/Magnum out of the performance category with the R1 at $299.95 making it the best value. For $100 more you add the GPS features and you are still saving money over a M3 detector and now have what everyone has been asking for a M3 w/GPS.

Yup, and that's why I gots one on pre-order with you :) :woop::thumbsup::beer::happyanim:
 

infiniti

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
2,564
Reaction score
3,004
Location
Ohio
I'd be happy to chip in to support this and other tests. Have we every considered setting up a mechanism to help support these tests? Not sure about paypal or other options.

Regardless, [MENTION=51]hiddencam[/MENTION], if you still need some money to cover portions of the test, please PM me.

Thanks Jhaggy (and everyone else) for the thanks appreciation and support!

The shipping bill today came to $194.56.

View attachment 55858

Hearty thanks to everyone who threw in some cash to help cover expenses. $200 was the total amount sent by Holla, colloyd00, Jazzy, Brainstorm69, Vehicle 1, InsipidMonkey, pntblnk, NPark, mark0101, and sixpackABS.

That covered all of the shipping expenses, so I'm sure grateful for you guys. The insurance alone came to about $95, a big chunk of that was insuring Vortex's Stalker II gun and 4 detectors. USPS sure don't miss an opportunity to make some money, do they! But imagine if I didn't get insurance and the whole lot went missing. I'd be in the hole to the awesome contributors who sent their gear a LOT of money.

So again, thanks guys for helping pay for those costs, and contributing to the cause by sending your detectors. We came together and made a great test!

I share the numbers to give people a better idea of what's involved with a big undertaking like this.

I drove 330 miles on the test day, which took 7 hours 51 minutes. Here's a snapshot of my Google history page for that day:

View attachment 55859

Add the time it takes to get all the video edited and uploaded to video; hours and hours, longer than you think it would take.

This test was very well worth it. The data is great, albeit unpopular to a few, and helps put these awesome new Unidens into perspective relative to the world-class detectors tested. Uniden sure have hit it out of the park.
 

BhamGuy

PSL +10
Advanced User
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
1,031
Reaction score
1,003
Regardless even if you had the least performing R1 or R3 its still above the pack and has better filtering. Uniden really has knocked the Redline/Magnum out of the performance category with the R1 at $299.95 making it the best value. For $100 more you add the GPS features and you are still saving money over a M3 detector and now have what everyone has been asking for a M3 w/GPS.
Dead on.

Not currently in the market for a replacement for my 950/1.00FW yet, but I am very tempted anyway. Those prices are terrific value. If I find some extra cash, will have to go that direction.
 

hiddencam

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
11,773
Reaction score
26,628
Hey guys no max 360 was part of the test?
Too many zeros? haha
Unfortunately not. I was asking for one in the other thread, but no joy. Would have been great to have one there. Also would have been great to have the 1.25 firmware that sped up reactivity dramatically. I think that might could have resulted in even longer distance.
 

lycan

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
77
Reaction score
28
Location
NJ/NYC (All Over county & boroughs)
Unfortunately not. I was asking for one in the other thread, but no joy. Would have been great to have one there. Also would have been great to have the 1.25 firmware that sped up reactivity dramatically. I think that might could have resulted in even longer distance.
I joined the party too late :( been a member here but was getting sick of the lack of reaction of my max360 and not seeing anything new in the other escort forum i stumbled into VortexRadar review about 2-3 weeks ago and pointed me back here :) #LifeSaver
 

BWX

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Jul 12, 2016
Messages
176
Reaction score
151
Glad I got in on that R3 pre-order. Can't wait to try it out.
 
Last edited:

drtoddw

Always driving at a safe and prudent speed
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
3,817
Reaction score
5,072
Location
Behind the wheel
Thanks for everything @hiddencam..awesome test! Good thing some of the angry members weren't around back in the day when foam was the standard in testing! :eek:

Easier to provide more experimental control with foam, though.
 

hiddencam

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
11,773
Reaction score
26,628
Easier to provide more experimental control with foam, though.
Prior testing with radar-absorbing foam was actually controversial amongst some in the CM community. I think there was only ever 1 GOL test with it?

I personally don't see the big deal. Foam or thick foliage, the effect is the same: massive signal attenuation and drastically reduced range.

Either way, the results would be the same.
 
Last edited:

Vortex

Making Videos
Observer
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Corgi Lovers
Advanced User
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
21,029
Reaction score
53,947
Location
Washington State
Prior testing with radar-absorbing foam was actually controversial amongst some in the CM community. I think there was only ever 1 GOL test with it?

I personally don't see the big deal. Foam or thick foliage, the effect is the same: massive signal attenuation and drastically reduced range.

Either way, the results would be the same.

I agree. I know people were up in arms about it at the time. It reduces the range and so it's not totally realistic, similar to you putting a radar gun in the trees or the TXCTG aiming the gun off at an angle.. but I figure so long as it's done uniformly such that every detector is impacted equally and the sensitivity rankings are still the same as without the foam, then so what? Funky test configurations can lead to weird results like where you saw detectors get no alert to a gun in the trees and so I don't see it replacing traditional tests, I think the rankings should still be similar and we'll nevertheless learn helpful information thanks to the tests. If nothing else, they'll be more like supplemental tests than de facto go-to references.
 

happya$$

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
1,202
Reaction score
2,130
We caught so much crap using Eccosorb I will never forget the controversy
 

Vortex

Making Videos
Observer
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Corgi Lovers
Advanced User
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
21,029
Reaction score
53,947
Location
Washington State

Brainstorm69

TXCTG - 2016 MOTY
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
11,376
Reaction score
27,824
Location
Lone Star State
What was the issue, specifically?

I'm guessing just that the distances didn't correlate to real world detection distances. That's what I thought when I first looked at those tests several years back before I got into countermeasure testing.

But you gain some perspective after performing many tests. I don't mind it now because I look at those kinds of tests in more relative terms now. Detector X alerted at 75% of detector Y's alert distance. I also like tests where you don't have to do that, too. I think you need both kinds of tests. But tests with eccosorb, trees, angled radars do give you a feel for how detectors are able to detect weak signals. I didn't realize the importance of that before I started testing.
 
Last edited:

Deacon

TXCTG
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
12,570
Reaction score
17,544
Location
Hill Country, TX
I agree. It's not about how far you can get a signal, which is extremely variable in the real world. It's how far you get a signal relative to each other in the same conditions. That plays out in innumerable ways in the real world, but understanding the differences in results is what gets you the info you need.

I haven't tried it, but it seems like using radar absorbing foam in a consistent manner (same box to all detectors are placed in or in which the radar antenna is placed) could actually make testing more efficient and consistent. If I can put it on a half mile stretch of straight, abandoned road with no traffic and get good separation, then my day just got a whole lot easier.
 

happya$$

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
1,202
Reaction score
2,130

Brainstorm69

TXCTG - 2016 MOTY
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
11,376
Reaction score
27,824
Location
Lone Star State
I agree. It's not about how far you can get a signal, which is extremely variable in the real world. It's how far you get a signal relative to each other in the same conditions. That plays out in innumerable ways in the real world, but understanding the differences in results is what gets you the info you need.

I haven't tried it, but it seems like using radar absorbing foam in a consistent manner (same box to all detectors are placed in or in which the radar antenna is placed) could actually make testing more efficient and consistent. If I can put it on a half mile stretch of straight, abandoned road with no traffic and get good separation, then my day just got a whole lot easier.

GOL put the radar gun into a box shielded with eccosorb. And yeah, I can see now where that would make testing go a lot quicker...lol. You gonna get some to put into your "tackle box"?
 

Deacon

TXCTG
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
12,570
Reaction score
17,544
Location
Hill Country, TX
Even though some people would get all up in arms about it, yeah, I actually would definitely be willing to try it and see how it goes. "But how will I know where the kill zone was?" :facepalm:
 

hiddencam

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
11,773
Reaction score
26,628
That it was not a real world test and cops don't use Eccosorb
But they sure do hide amongst the bushes, behind trees, behind signs, on bends, over crests. Eccosorb nicely imitates real world "stuff" that naturally absorbs radar. Shoot, I want some now.

Simply put, signals aren't always easy to detect. Weak signal detection is paramount. Especially if that's all the alert you're going to get before being instant owned by a selective rolling or static LEO. Traditional tests with measurable kill zones and easier to detect radar signals have their place for sure. But poo-pooers of relativity testing, use of thick foliage, eccosorb, or anything else that attenuates radar need to open their minds.
 

Edwv30

Advanced User
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
1,921
Reaction score
1,568
I think we should use the foam AND put the radar gun up in a tree! Kill zone? What kill zone? :roflolmao: You can't make everyone happy no matter how you test...just fascinating to read some peoples reactions.
 

Discord Server

Latest threads

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
90,076
Messages
1,370,177
Members
22,665
Latest member
Deathkillex
Top