V1G2 Bench Testing K Band Reactivity

OBeerWANKenobi

This is not the car you're looking for......
ModSec
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Corgi Lovers
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
6,999
Reaction score
20,125
Location
Outer Rim - Hiding from 35.5 I/O
I received my V1G2 today and took it to the test bench as soon as I got it out of the box. @Brainstorm69 did some more technical testing on K band reactivity using a Python and @GTO_04 and @DrHow did some live testing out in the field coming up with some interesting results with a Falcon HR. My main goal was to try a couple different modes and settings and see if I could corroborate results.

I've done a bit of testing involving filtering and K band reactivity with Unidens both on my bench and in the field and have been able to correlate bench results with field results. I've also been involved in field testing with low powered K band and it's affect on different RD filtering techniques including Uniden K filter and TSF, V1G1 TMF2 and ProM TsRej. In all of those cases, filtering had at least some adverse consequences. Generally, the quieter the detector was made with filtering, the worse the performance.

So, in the testing below, I'm using the same Decatur Genesis 1 that I've used in the past for K band bench testing. I've attenuated the signal to avoid overdriving the detectors. This is accomplished with a plywood antenna enclosure lined with Ecosorb material. I can slide the lid more open or closed and literally cut the signal down so far that the detectors wont detect it at all.

In the testing I'm using a Uniden R1 running FW 1.37 as a control, not for any sort of direct comparison. For those who haven't went through all the Uniden FW's, 1.37 has basically been the gold standard for reactivity and the TSF setting barely affects it if at all. In my earlier videos comparing later FW versions on R3's and testing reactivity of other detectors, including the R7, I've always run my R1 with 1.37 as the control. Having tested the R7 vs my R1 with 1.37, I can tell you that the R7's reactivity is on par as long as TSF remains off. TSF gives the R7 a haircut in reactivity and consequently, sensitivity in the field.



So, some comments and my thoughts on what appears to be going on here.

First, as Brainstorm is fond of saying, this is only one test. More testing needs to be done to verify my findings and to correlate them with actual differences in the field. That being said:

Just like the Uniden detectors on some versions of FW, attempts to quiet false alerts appear to be negatively affecting reactivity to genuine threats. With filtering on, specifically "K verifier", alerts are delayed by a significant amount. As soon as "K verifier" is turned off, the detector reacts quickly and I believe faster than the control. Although this needs to be tested to prove the correlation, in my experience with other detectors, what I see here will measurably reduce sensitivity and range in the field. Results pointing to that are posted on here on the forum.

What I've seen in this early testing appears to corroborate Brainstorm's reactivity testing and also the Falcon HR results.


My opinion based on what I've seen so far is that most likely everyone will be just fine against C/O full-power K band, but with I/O and low-powered K band things could get a little hairy. Low powered and "dirty" signals that aren't much above the noise floor give filtering routines a hard time. Unfortunately, when that signal is I/O or low power, it can keep a detector from giving enough warning to slow down.

According to Mike in his interview with @Vortex, Valentine will be offering FW updates through an app. I would guess that the filtering routine can be adjusted or they can give us a sensitivity adjustment so we can quiet the detector without it going through the "black box" filtering routine.


Comments and critique welcome. If anyone believes there are some other settings I should try, let me know. It only takes a few minutes to run them through the setup.

ETA:. Big L K verifier off
 
Last edited:

oversteer325

Caution, Anchor May Drop Suddenly
Premium Plus
Intermediate User
Joined
May 7, 2019
Messages
773
Reaction score
1,577
Location
NC/SC

Tallyho

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
3,340
Reaction score
6,643
At the moment, there is no free lunch when it comes to K band detection.

You can have quick reactivity and more falsing or you can have less falsing with less reactivity. There's no good answer, only compromises from one end of the spectrum to the other.

The 2 unresolved K band filtering questions for the Gen2 are:

1) What is the "falsing penalty" for turning K Verifier off? We know Gen1 was unusable with TMF off. Would Gen2 be the same way or is there more going on under the hood beyond K Verifier?

2) What is the "range penalty" or reduction in range for keeping K Verifier on? It was a 20%-25% range penalty when using TMF against standard K band guns, and up to 50% for low power K guns.

Hopefully the answer is that there are improvements made in both cases that will provide additional options even before future firmware updates may address the issue.
 

hiddencam

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
11,773
Reaction score
26,630
Nice work! Yeah, filtering seems to be a necessary evil with legacy detectors. Shame that it impacts the new V1Gen2 just like all the rest.

Really interested to see how L-mode performs against the attenuation box. Might filter it completely out??

May I propose to elevate this thread so LEOs don't learn how to defeat those who elect to run filtering....most of us LOL
 

Up All Night

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
3,807
Reaction score
4,081
Location
Cleveland, OH
You say legacy like it’s a dirty word.
Mike will tweak
And hopefully the Theia concept will live up to expectations. So far every detector has a ‘achilles’ heel’, some flaw (chink) in its armor... None are perfect.
Posted from my iPhone using the RDF Mobile App!
 
Last edited:

InsipidMonkey

Essential Monkey
ModSec
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Corgi Lovers
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
8,059
Reaction score
18,518
Location
New England
If anyone believes there are some other settings I should try, let me know. It only takes a few minutes to run them through the setup.
Thanks for the testing @OBeerWANKenobi! It's really surprising the delay seems to be longer than TMF2 (~0.5s), but sensitivity/real world performance are so much better. I'd be surprised if it's just due to delayed reactivity, there has to be something else going on... 🤷‍♂️

With your attenuator, can you adjust the signal strength the detector is seeing? I'm wondering whether K Verifier imposes a different amount of filtering to a 1 bar signal strength than say a 3 bar signal strength.

Also, would it be possible to test the effect pushing a tighter K band sweep has on reactivity? Maybe try something like 24.050-24.200 and see if that's faster, and also whether it has any impact on K Verifier like we're hypothesizing in another thread? Also, while you're at it, maybe try pushing a K band sweep that doesn't cover the antenna you're using (eg 23.910-24.050) and confirm it doesn't alert?
 

shooter2jim

Learning to Drive
General User
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
17
Reaction score
32
With this test, you're presenting a signal of equal strength to both detectors but the G2 is just right there on the fringe of detecting it when the R1 gives a solid 1 bar. I guess the question I have is could Uniden's hadware just be better than Valentine's? I mean, we are looking at a David vs. Goliath scenario here when it comes to Valentine vs. Uniden and their purchasing power. When you're able to go to a manufacturer with a request for 100k units of a certain part vs. 10k, you're able to get some concessions- better quality for the same or lesser cost- than the little guy. I know boosting the signal kills the point of this test but would be interesting to see.
 

TurboDriver

One foot on the brake, one on the gas...
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
2,292
Reaction score
3,149
Location
Michigan
.
Thanks for the testing, these kind of tests are important to me. I have put all my detectors through these type of tests but I don't have the V1 so this is very useful, nice job!
 

westwind77

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Dec 7, 2016
Messages
3,048
Reaction score
5,955
K band reactivity is key where I am, and they do use I/O as well as low power. This could be a deal-breaker for me if there is no sign of future improvement. Knowing that firmware can be updated easily does make me feel a bit better, but not sure how much seat time this will get overall until this is addressed. When you listen to Mike's interview he mentions dealing with false alerts, having to make sacrifices to have a quieter ride. I find myself a bit shocked saying this but Escort has figured out how to filter out BSM's mostly but also gets quick k-band reactivity as well. Hopefully those 'science projects' he mentioned include fixing this issue.
 

ShadowTrooper

First Guard
ModSec
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
2,142
Reaction score
2,591
Location
Somewhere Cold
Great write up as usual

Your experiences seem to corroborate with my brief bench testing of another members unit before shipping it out. There was a short delay with the V1 depending on settings while it verified the signal. Looks to be user tunable though so that's good to know for anyone facing this sneaky K band creeping its way back into enforcement vehicles like it is around me.
 

OBeerWANKenobi

This is not the car you're looking for......
ModSec
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Corgi Lovers
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
6,999
Reaction score
20,125
Location
Outer Rim - Hiding from 35.5 I/O
Thanks for the testing @OBeerWANKenobi! It's really surprising the delay seems to be longer than TMF2 (~0.5s), but sensitivity/real world performance are so much better. I'd be surprised if it's just due to delayed reactivity, there has to be something else going on... 🤷‍♂️

With your attenuator, can you adjust the signal strength the detector is seeing? I'm wondering whether K Verifier imposes a different amount of filtering to a 1 bar signal strength than say a 3 bar signal strength.

Also, would it be possible to test the effect pushing a tighter K band sweep has on reactivity? Maybe try something like 24.050-24.200 and see if that's faster, and also whether it has any impact on K Verifier like we're hypothesizing in another thread? Also, while you're at it, maybe try pushing a K band sweep that doesn't cover the antenna you're using (eg 23.910-24.050) and confirm it doesn't alert?
I'm doing a little more bench testing right now and I've got another video uploading on my slow as hell rural internet.

I can definitely adjust the strength of signal that the detectors are seeing with the attenuator box. In fact what I like to do is adjust it so that I've got at least two bars. That way it's far enough above the noise floor that it gives everything a fair chance.

What I've been messing around with this morning is big L mode with K verifier off. I believe big L mode is definitely a user-level filter.

In relation to your question about signal strength and K verifier, I suspect that brainstorm's results already give us our answer since he wasn't attenuating. However, when testing your theory with big L mode today, I found that Even with pretty strong signals it doesn't really want to alert right away or at all. The funny thing is even if I turn off transmit on the gun and then switch to "A" mode for instance, It will alert, most likely because the detector still sees the signal and is still latching on to the signal in the background. Big L Just keeps it from alerting.

Also I found that with a fairly strong signal, Like basically full bars on the Uniden, big L mode won't alert, Even if it's sitting there stewing in it......BUT as soon as I wave my hand over the signal path and disrupt it it does go off. It's like it's looking for some kind of change or something.

I would not run big L mode just yet if you face k-band daily. I think Little L is pretty good though so far.

I'll add the video someday after it uploads.... Ugh
 

hiddencam

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
11,773
Reaction score
26,630
You say legacy like it’s a dirty word.
Mike will tweak
And hopefully the Theia concept will live up to expectations. So far every detector has a ‘achilles’ heel’, some flaw (chink) in its armor... None are perfect.
Posted from my iPhone using the RDF Mobile App!
Legacy isn't a dirty word to me. I'm an enthusiast at heart remember. I think I'm "concurrently enthusiastic" about, say, legacy V1Gen2 versus the upcoming new-era platform you mentioned, Theia. Sure, I'm super stoked about the quantum leap that's coming, but I'm still pretty stoked about the V1Gen2; just a little bummed about this K reactivity weakness. I actually can't wait to test it.

"Mike will tweak", yes for sure, I don't doubt it for a second. But his recent interview comments gave the impression that he's already spent an enormous amount of time on "filtering" tweaks this Gen2, and had to make compromises. As he put it, his target market is himself, so if he's happy, that's that. Bottom line is there is only so much he can do with his patented "legacy" RF design. And it's that limitation that creates the kind of chink in the armor you speak of.

The solution is risk management by users; choose your poison and drive accordingly. Pretty sure Advanced Logic mode will be sparingly used by yours truly, and certainly not on the interstate. And when I run All Bogies or Logic mode, I'll probably be turning K-Verifier off when I'm approaching low-powered IO K territories.

Thanks again for the testing @OBeerWANKenobi !
 

V1Jake

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
7,024
Reaction score
9,373
Location
34.7 Destroyer
K band reactivity is key where I am, and they do use I/O as well as low power.

Pennsylvania Troopers love their Falcons/Talons and I/O....
 

OBeerWANKenobi

This is not the car you're looking for......
ModSec
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Corgi Lovers
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
6,999
Reaction score
20,125
Location
Outer Rim - Hiding from 35.5 I/O
Here's the latest video..... I'll add it to the first post as well.
 

hiddencam

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
11,773
Reaction score
26,630
I continue to be very curious about the attenuation box. As you and I have discussed previously, I think we really need to consider which positioning might create a signal that closer represents real LEO radar texture. If the box is merely producing a weak non-LEO type signal, then the V1G2 is doing its job filtering it out in L-mode (or even A-mode for that matter).

Would love to see how Theia "sees" the signal you're producing with the box in these tests. Who knows what the eccosorb is doing to the signal signature.

Personally, for the times I'd likely be running L-mode, I'll also be likely driving slower, maybe not too much above LEO tolerance anyway - so any reduced range/reactivity by the V1G2 (to even very weak LEO signals that are filtered) is less likely to put me in the cross-hairs of a LEO trying to be sneaky.

Perhaps you could create a on-axis short course, with the box/antenna static & pointed at the RD's horns, say a hundred or two hundred yards away, or however far away for you to be on the fringe of detection, and see how the the detectors fair?
 

Discord Server

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Threads
90,176
Messages
1,372,041
Members
22,690
Latest member
rpriscu
Top