AndyB

Since (in another thread) I posted that I believe radartest.com is biased I figured I would post some additional info along those lines.

Let me start by saying that I own a V1 detector and I have owned several others including a cobra, escort, and bell.

I am doing this because RadarTest.com seems to keep coming up wherever I go. I saw it on the F-Body forums (camaro/firebird) the Durango Forum, and now here.

RadarTest's Craig Peterson is no stranger to controversy and accusations of bias. From Automobile magazine in March 1996 there is this editorial:


Finally, my own observations. If you read the current radartest.com ratings and base your opinion on the "star" ratings, you would see that the V1 is clearly inferior to MOST radar detectors, including many of the cheap Bel units.

Seriously, radartest.com didn't give the V1 ANY points (as far asi can tell) for the arrows, but took away points because it doesn't offer more than one set of ring tones. Not the people I want rating MY detector!

But I think the best information comes from this response on the Valentine Research web site.

(direct link to article)


I looked at the radartest.com page where they defend themselves against the Valentine V1-Hater article. Unlike the Valentine article, the radartest article resorts to personal attacks and insults rather than facts. Not unlike their reviews in my opinion.


.

AndyB

Here is another link to a site that talks about the bad blood between radartest and valentine.

http://members.tripod.com/~spreeman/escort-baloney.html


One things seems obvious, there IS bad blood between the two and thus the objectivity of the reviewer is called in to question.

Of course....

The same thing could be said against Valentine 1 if they published reviews and claimed that they were unbiased. But they don't.


.

35ounces

iTrader: (5)

Fair enough. Its nice that you have presented your facts for thinking its biased.

I would have to disagree on some minor points however. I have both the escort 8500 and V1.
It would be nice to have more control over the lighting display on the V1 (directly from the unit). Also, I am not sure I'd agree about the loudness of the alerts. The speaker direction is better thought out on the V1 (facing driver) but I think the escort is in fact louder.
He also skipped the UI issues with V1 completely. The signal level and band LEDs for instance are almost unreadable. There is no comparison to the larger display of the escort in this regard.
Don't get me wrong here, I like the V1. Its in the Z and the escort is in the Jeep. Yes I like the directional arrows too. However, actual detection is, for all practical purposes equivalent and the escort is considerably cheaper.

toykilla

iTrader: (1)

that is a very good unbiased response ... many people rant and rave saying whatever they own is the best.. i have an escort 8500.. i love it but have never tried the valentine.. for 200 bucks more i dont see it being much better than what i am running.. i made the choice that was best for me.. others will have to choose also....

B/D

great forum guys. Great to me a member of one of my favorite cars on a forum.

Just wanted to add this link to this discussion in the name of Bi-Partisanship

Never hurts to hear both sided of a story after all.

That Valentine Thing
by Craig Peterson

I don't make it a practice to make personal attacks on those with whom I disagree, although the anonymity Valentine One radar detectorand safety of Internet-launched attacks has certainly elevated this into an art form. Curiously, I've never received hate mail from owners of detectors sold by BEL, Cobra, Escort, PNI, Early Warning, Snooper, Uniden, Adaptiv, BG Tech or Whistler. This in spite of the fact that while my tests over the past decade in Automobile and a dozen other magazines both here and abroad have declared as winners a model or two from nearly every one of those outfits, so have I declared others in their model lineups to be losers.

On the other hand, I constantly get hate mail from fans of the Valentine One. And I almost daily run across excerpts--sometimes the entire pages-long diatribe--from Mike Valentine's personal attack on me, prominently carried for years on his company Website. This kind of personal attack is rather rare in the corporate world (when is the last time you've witnessed something similar?) and I've ignored these rantings since they began in 1993--Mr. Valentine is nothing if not relentless--but frankly I'm weary of seeing one witless nutcase after another resurrect Mike's old diatribe to bolster yet another attack.

So just this once, I'll examine some of the more contentious charges on Mike's Web site and repeated endlessly by V1 Zombies. Then you'll have a balanced look at the facts. Here are some of the high points of the Valentine attack.

Valentine:

" 'Craig Peterson's December [1995] radar detector comparison test generated more angry letters--and on-line discussion--than anything since the Davis Ferrari/raccoon incident.' -- Automobile, March, 1996"

My response: Typical of his "do whatever it takes to win" nature, Mike has altered this quote. Actually, it read: "...generated more angry letters--most of them from Valentine owners--than anything..." Nobody else has complained about any of my tests during the entire decade I ran them for the magazine and in the years since for Radartest.com—Mr. Valentine excepted. But when I fail to pay homage to the V1, many of those who purchase this heavily-hyped, expensive detector instantly go into attack mode.

This includes Valentine himself whose 1993 letter to Bill Neill, editor of Car Audio and Electronics, had Neill rolling his eyes.

"You're not going to believe this but I got a four-page, single-spaced letter of complaint from Mike Valentine," he told me. "Took me 20 minutes to read it. But don't worry; we're used to this from little manufacturers with big egos. I mean, the guy did name his product after himself, which tells you a lot about the guy."

I get exactly the same reaction from purchasers of Rocky Mountain Radar's bogus radar/laser jammers. They've just spent megabucks for what's reputed to be a world-beating product and here I have the temerity to question its supremacy.

Valentine:

"He gets measurements wrong
But instead of debating philosophy, let's look at his record on simple facts. Peterson opens his website review of V1 by saying it is "by far the largest and heaviest unit tested..."

On our scale, Passport is heaviest at 8.9 ounces followed by V1 at 8.6 and the BEL at 8.0. Only V1 has a metal case (magnesium), the others are plastic.

Passport is also the longest by a huge margin at 5.29 inches, followed by the BEL at 4.72 inches. V1 is shortest at 4.46 inches, more than a quarter inch shorter than the BEL and nearly an inch shorter than Passport.
In thickness, all are within 0.1 of an inch (V1 is thickest). Only in width is V1 significantly larger than the others, but the difference between them is less than the difference in length."

My response: I weigh the unit complete with power cord and the V1 with its substantial plug did tip the scales a bit more than the Escort and BEL at the time of that 2000 test. And face it: width in a detector is of far greater significance than length. A wide detector blocks more of the driver's view of the road ahead, an item of some importance to most of us. Length, on the other hand, is of little consequence.

Despite his denial, Valentine finally abandoned the fat housing I mentioned in the Automobile test and returned to the original 1991 case that's slightly slimmer and lighter, although just as wide.

Valentine:

"His range tests raise questions about his methods
In the Automobile straightaway/hill test, notice how his results mostly fall into four narrow clusters at 23, 27, 31, and 40. In fact, only three bars are not in those clusters. Look closely. Four of five detectors have the same K-band range. Seven different X-band tests have the same distance of 31; two detectors get exactly the same results for both City and Highway modes (why have both modes if they perform the same?)."

My response: As I mentioned in the story, those "narrow clusters" correspond to slight hillcrests which naturally tend to group together detectors with similar sensitivity. As they reach a crest, they come more directly into the radar beam and bingo, they alert.

That phenomenon didn't occur until, after years of carping by Mike, I lengthened this nearly-flat 4.1-mile straightaway test site because I was accused of truncating the site to unfairly limit the true maximum range potential of the V1. Once it became evident that several other models had equal or better maximum range, particularly on Ka band, Mike attacked my selection of test sites.

And apparently he doesn't often look at other detectors or he'd know that many manufacturers don't alter sensitivity in X-band City mode, they merely raise the threshold at which an alert is sounded. It keeps the unit quiet in town. So naturally their detection range in both modes is nearly identical.

In my tests I rigidly group the contestants according to price, mindful that higher price almost inevitably means better performance. So it's not unusual for these comparably priced units to exhibit similar performance, at least on X and K band. Ka-band performance costs money and some of the manufacturers have slacked off in this area and usually only a few show stellar performance on Ka.

In contrast, Mike's tireless champions at Car and Driver routinely test the $399 V1 against models street-priced as low as $99, the ethical equivalent to asking a 2.0T VW GTI to square off against a 911 Turbo. The test results are hardly a surprise--but they do make for great quotes in Valentine's magazine ads. And some find it puzzling that Valentine uses as a testimonial only one ancient Car and Driver test. Over two dozen testers agree with me, finding his arch competitors' units, the Escort 8500 X50 and the BEL RX65, to be superb detectors, equal to or better than the Valentine One in performance while offering more features, for less money.

Car and Driver magazine's cozy relationship with big advertisers like Valentine is well documented. In a front page story in the July 29, 1990 issue of the Wall Street Journal, reporter Joseph B. White wrote: "At Car and Driver, America's largest magazine for car buffs, the writers and editors like to get close to their subjects. Very close.

Editor William Jeanes says he encourages staffers to be 'consultants' to auto makers, the better to get early access to new cars and inside dope."

That included letting editors work for Cincinnati Microwave, which created the Escort brand of detectors and sold them until its mid-Nineties implosion. (Its detector division's assets were purchased by a Chicago businessman and a new firm, Escort Radar Inc., was created. Other than the brand name, there is no connection between the two.)

Car and Driver personnel were regular guests of CMI during the glory years and not infrequently traveled on the corporate CMI jet. Editor Pat Bedard even drove Escort's Indy car in the Indianapolis 500 in 1983 and again in 1984.

Mr. Bedard created the radar detector testing procedures for the magazine with his inaugural 1979 test and either personally conducted or supervised many future tests. The stories share a common thread: Without exception a Valentine-associated product won every test of high-end models.

In 1984 Mike Valentine's partner and co-founder of CMI, Jim Jaeger, assumed control of the company and quickly showed Mike the door. While Valentine sat on the sidelines, bound by a non-compete agreement with CMI, Bedard generated puff pieces in Car and Driver promoting Mr. Valentine such as "Revenge of the Nerds, Automotive Division", (May 1985 issue) and he wrote the operator manual for the G Analyst performance computer with whose development Mike occupied himself while cooling his heels. When the non-compete agreement expired in 1992, it was back to business as usual.

In the April 1992 issue Mr. Bedard wrote the story "They Have Lasers". The laser used in the story, a target vehicle and most of the information were provided by the person on which the story focused: Mike Valentine.

Perhaps coincidentally, a Valentine product has won every high-end detector test the magazine has run in the 15 years since then, a feat unequaled in the history of consumer electronics.

Valentine:

"The man behind the byline
Rather than trying to explain Peterson's mysterious results, let me just remind you that his credibility has long been in question. In response to his December, 1995, test, Automobile admitted a flood of "angry letters" which "criticized our selection of the BEL 745Sti Plus as our first-place winner over the Valentine One, which tied for third place. Amidst all the allegations of invalid test methodology and unfairness were suggestions that Peterson showed undue favoritism to the BEL unit because he has consulted for the company."

In the March, 1996, issue, Peterson replied, "Having consulted to every major detector manufacturer, suggestions that BEL received preferential treatment are nonsense."

He's wrong on that point too. He's never been a consultant to Valentine Research, although he's approached us more than once. We declined his advances each time."

My response: Not true. I've never met nor spoken to Mike Valentine but I knew enough about him that I wouldn't have worked for him under any circumstances. I volunteered the information that I'd consulted to the industry because I felt ethically bound to disclose that to my readers. It appears that sense of propriety isn't shared by the editors of Car and Driver. But nobody had ever asked and frankly, no manufacturer but Valentine has ever expressed the slightest concern over my consulting, either before or since that 1996 statement that I insisted be inserted in Automobile magazine. The test results were repeatable and when Automobile sent editor Kevin Clemens along to monitor future tests, nothing much changed.

People who knew me weren't surprised. Such is my stature in the industry that in the early Nineties I consulted to all three of the biggest manufacturers simultaneously. Their faith in my integrity was so complete that even with intimate knowledge of their plans and future products--information worth millions to a rival company--none showed the slightest hesitation in retaining my services, even knowing that I was providing similar expertise to their fiercest competitors.

It's also worth noting that at the time of the 1995 Automobile flap, unbeknownst to me, the CEOs of all three of these companies wrote personal letters in my defense to Automobile publisher David E. Davis, Jr., suggesting that he do a bit more than simply repeat the rantings of the Valentine lobby. Instead, over dinner with Mike an arrangement was made: the magazine henceforth would drop my stories if Mike would resume advertising in Automobile. Which he did. I'll always be grateful for that decision since it spurred me to begin writing for the Internet, which in turn led to other opportunities.

But here's what really triggered Mike's outrage about the consulting issue. Remember, my statement in Automobile began: "Having consulted to every major detector manufacturer..." And I'd never met or spoken to Mike Valentine, much less approached him about a consulting gig.

Frankly it never occurred to me. Valentine Research, little more than a storefront boutique outfit, is so tiny that the CEA, the consumer electronics industry trade association, doesn't even bother to estimate the sales of this privately held company. (Mike and his wife are the owners.) Best estimates by industry experts are that Valentine accounts for less than 0.8 percent of total industry sales. Knowing this, my thought at the time was: Why bother? I'm already running Mach 3 with my hair on fire, trying to handle existing clients, writing for a dozen magazines and producing videos, among other things. And with Valentine's famously abrasive personality, why even think about working for an ego-centric jerk? That's one of the few luxuries of the self-employed--they can work for whom they wish.

Those who know Mike--and in the two decades I've been associated with the industry I've met plenty of folks who do--are unanimous in their opinion that he has, shall we say, some unresolved personal issues. "Mike's ego walks into the room 20 minutes before he gets there," a detector company CEO who'd worked for years previously with Valentine once remarked. And that's why he was shown the door at Escort in 1984, long before most of their landmark products were developed. Nobody could get along with the guy. If I ever were to meet him, I have no doubt I'd fall into that group as well.

One last item: Mike neglects to mention a rather noteworthy point about that hated 2000 Automobile magazine test he remains so vexed over. He won the damn thing. But even after I declared the Valentine One the winner of that test, naming it the best in the business, he hounded editor Kevin Clemens for months afterward. Finally Clemens stopped taking his calls. And Mike's complaint? He hadn't won by a large enough margin.

--Craig Peterson

https://radartest.com/article.asp?articleid=9070

Now you can judge BOTH sides

Bedard the C/D editor DID work as a consultant for M/V at one time. After he was called out on this fact C/D has NEVER made another rd test again.

3hree5ive0ero

iTrader: (95)

Interesting read.

... but you must be Craig Peterson himself or one of his associates. Why else would you dig up a 9+ year old thread to simply post "the other side of the story?"

jduet

iTrader: (26)

Seriously

B/D

Seriously ?

you don't believe in hearing "the other side of the story" ??

This silly C/P bashing thread keeps coming up as a pick when one goggle that site for new rd tests TO THIS DAY.

therefore it isn't old at all sadly.

and a hardly bi-partisan poster or topic

I like to read ALL new rd test reviews on the net and that is one site I visit

valentine owners fanboys STILL hate that c/p told and still tells the truth about his detector

to this day in fact

read the answer C/P gave.

C/P has sent me info that I have requested on new detectors from time to time.

In spite of the bashing he's received from that group because of his views

He is a pretty nice fellow and very approachable and answers personal e-mail questions.

Mike V doesn't and isn't.

haven't received any e-mails back from him yet

B/D

I would almost the same way if I wanted to see new Nissan info and Google kept giving me one of the picks was a car site with a 350 Z Basher.

But that would really get me pissed indeed !


Love this car and nissan's in general !

3hree5ive0ero

iTrader: (95)

Like I said, it's an interesting read and it's oddly comical at the same time. I do appreciate you posting the other side of the story, so I hope you didn't take offense.

However, this is a 350Z specific site with very minimal information on radar detector comparisons, so I highly doubt it ranks too high on Google searches unless you intentionally include 350Z in your search query. Plus, this thread is nearly a decade old so with just 1000 views, so unless you were specifically searching for Craig Peterson bashings, you probably wouldn't have found it. That leads me to believe you're either CP or an affiliate of his.

I don't care either way. I've had Bel RX65 Pro, Escort 8500 x50, and Valentine One so my preference comes from personal experience. Bel crapped out on me with only 2 years of usage and kept displaying error codes. Escort is pretty much the same thing as Bel except better built, but still couldn't last more than 2-3 years. I've been using V1 since and haven't had any issues in my 2 years of ownership. I will say that the V1 seems least Ka band sensitive out of the 3, but those arrows and bogey counters are pretty useful.

B/D

thanks for your appreciation of the other side being told.

I always believe one needs both sides of any story to understand for themselves any situation.

Unfortunately if you DO a search from the msn home page with bing about radartest.com this silly bashers posting ALWAYS COMES UP.

Don't need to include the 350 z whatsoever in that search

PROOF !

RadarTest.com biased ? (long) - MY350Z.COM Forums
my350z.com/forum/audio-and-video/​40281-radartest-com-biased-long.html

RadarTest.com biased ? (long) Audio & Video ... You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access ...
RadarTest.com - Best radar detector reviews from the world's …
radartest.com

Tests and reviews by Radartest.com of the best radar detectors from Beltronics, Cobra, Escort, Whistler and Valentine. Extensive information about GPS detectors ...
radartest.com
http://www.radardetector.net/.../​62...rtest-com.html


Nope, not a C/P affiliate whatsoever and never have been or ever will be as I already told you. Reread my posts...please.

Just a person who has got a few nice replies from him on info that I really wanted.

this original thread starter never ever even did that and was seriously clueless and believe it or not this topic is still relevant to this day.


I have owned about every detector on the planet and if one owns a 350 z radar detectors are a very relevant topic.

sorry to hear that you have had such poor luck with your bell and escort units. I can't say that myself as my Bell detectors haven't ever let me down that way.

Never bought a escort for some strange reason but now that Bell and escort are one and the same thing producing badge engineered products feel I have now.

You will be certainly glad of one thing I can tell you.

Mike V has finally made a very worthy Freq, display for his detector.

Look at his site and i am sure you will be pleased as I was.

It is something I have been waiting for for a long time.

Z1NONLY

iTrader: (2)

I used to be very active in the countermeasure community.

-So much so, that I participated in many tests with actual police radar and laser guns.

The V1 was the most sensitive detector on the market until Belscort came up with the M3 platform. (Sti-R, Sti Driver, Redline, 9500CI, etc)

Craig Peterson was either using defective V1's or he was just full of crap.

V1 still has an advantage in responsiveness and isn't far behind the M3 platform. (Band segmentation on the newer STi-R + has closed some of the responsiveness gap though)

B/D

actually peterson uses many different v1''s in his tests and has worlds of experience beyond both of us and then some in this field no matter how biased you are against him because his v1 testing doesn't satisfy your wishes.

I don't count private rd tests as much experience at all. Too many variables these individuals leave out because they don't have the resources to do proper testing.

I notice when peterson or any other professional rd testers don't bow down to m/v and the great v1 then the insults fly.

your post just confirms this v1 fan boy attitude once again.

Z1NONLY

iTrader: (2)

You really don't know what you are talking about.

I own 5 radar detectors and 3 laser jammers now.....(I can't count how many I have owned in the past)

One of them is a V1.

One.

All the other equipment is Belscort. I have Hundreds of thousands of miles' experience with radar detectors/Laser jammers as well as actual test experience.

Peterson was wrong about the V1's performance plain and simple.

As I stated in my post, the M3 platform is the most sensitive platform. (Not the V1)

That's some real V1 fanboy stuff there.

tquill

iTrader: (15)

Like Z1, I also use to be active the radar detector community and currently own two Belscorts, one V1, and two laser jammers.

I've done my own testing along with some testing with other RD enthusiasts... and C/P is full of it. And before you repeat your "private rd tests are unreliable" line... I'm an degreed aerospace engineer who works in an engineering test lab, so let's just say I'm familiar with testing and test variables.

Regardless, the most important questions to ask are:

- Does CP sell Belscort detectors? Yes.

- Does CP sell Valentine detectors? No.

It all comes down to $$$. I sell neither, so I don't give a damn which is better. They're both great.