Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!news.centerline.com!jimf
From: jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Best Radar Detector - VALENTINE-1?
Date: 21 Apr 1993 13:00:41 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <1r3ghp$3n9@armory.centerline.com>
References: <1993Apr17.015652.29648@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> <1993Apr20.203156.167@sequent.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.202

troy@sequent.com (Troy Wecker) writes:
>There is no question that the Valentine-1 ($299) has good range but
>not significant enough to be 2 or 3 times as expensive as some of the
>others.

The big win with the V-1 is not its range but rather its
directionality and multiple-transmitter tracking (which you later
called a "gimmick" -- a conclusion I disagree with).  Since the
detector incorporates multiple receivers it's not surprising that it's
significantly more expensive.  While the added capabilities may not
help you, there is added value for those of us who live in areas where
there are a lot of false-alarms.

>Summary: Valentine-1 way too expensive and not a significantly better
>performer!

I certainly call it "interesting" but I'm another person who thinks
that the added value might be coming at too high a cost.  Very
adequate radar detectors are available for less than half the cost and
one of them has suited me rather well.  If I did more long-distance
travelling in areas I'm not familiar with I'd probably consider
getting the V-1 because it's additional information would be useful in
discriminating false alarms.

jim frost
jimf@centerline.com
