Bel 870 Radar Detector, Performance on a budget (by the motorcycle cop....again)
Written: Mar 20 '01 (Updated Mar 21 '01)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
| Effectiveness: |
 |
|
| Ease of Use: |
|
|
| Durability: |
 |
|
|
Pros: Budget priced, but a good performer
Cons: More money in the Bel model line will buy even more sensitivity.
The Bottom Line: If you want a radar detector, and are on a budget, this is an excellent performing economy class model.
|
|
|
| tejones's Full Review: Beltronics BEL 870 Radar Detector |
(NOTE: This is a continuation of radar detector opinions I have already written. Rather than have everyone grow tired of watching me repeat myself in each opinion, please read my opinions on the Bel 980 and the Cobra ESD-6500. I’m not trying to drive up visits to my opinions, but these two articles contain some very important information about who I am, and some extremely useful discussions about police traffic radar that tie in well with any discussion of radar detectors. It may even be best that you read those articles before reading this one!! Many thanks).
Several months ago I asked my daughter-in-law what she would like for Christmas. Usually she’s too shy to give a definitive answer, but this time she indicated that she wanted Santa to bring her a radar detector to replace one that had gone south.
I had several used testing models, but of course none of these would be proper for a gift. Since I already knew that Bel detectors were good choices in practically any model, I opted to buy the budget priced Bel 870 for $99.00 plus tax. Naturally I had to put the device up against my traffic radars before Christmas time. So, being careful not to ding her new toy, I put it through the test hoop (I never told her and hope she doesn’t read epinions-my wife found out though and I got somewhat of a tongue lashing for taking the gift out of the box).
Beltronics has always produced good to excellent radar detectors, although the company hasn’t always received due recognition for its efforts. A good while ago I read somewhere that Bel has its own design laboratory and does extensive testing of its products instead of buying whatever mass-produced circuits are available, slapping a case and brand name on them, and shipping everything out to market. In the early 1980’s Bel produced a large heavy radar detector known simply as the Gul. The model never was popular, especially in those days when Cincinatti Microwave’s Escort detector was king of all dashboard accessories. But, in a 1982 article, a Car and Driver magazine product review reported that the Gul was far superior in terms of performance to even the daunting Escort. Of course this sensitivity was on the X-band, but 20 years ago K-band use was spotty and Ka-band wasn’t even on the drawing board yet. Across the board, all Bel models will perform a good to excellent job of detecting traffic radar outside radar’s nominal range, provided that the traffic radar is left in constant operation. This seems true for even the lower priced models found at discount stores and electronics outlets.
As expected, the Bel 870 has all the bells and whistles common to the other models being currently sold. It has automute, bright and dim display modes, city/highway operation (affecting X-band only), and a visual text display indicating the radar band being detected. Like other Bel detectors, it has an extremely loud alert volume. It also has digital voice warnings like its more expensive brothers in the Bel model line and since I already tested a Bel 860 with good results, I expected the Bel 870 to perform at least as well. It did.
Checking out the 870 against the Kustom HR-12 K-band traffic radar, maximum detection range was on the order of a couple of miles; not bad. The real test was over the crest of a hill where the little 870 did a respectable job of offering the driver several seconds warning time before the radar antenna popped into view. Nothing quite like the expensive and top performing 980 I had tested, but far better than any of the $100.00 class radar detectors I’m familiar with. I expected some decrease in performance when switching to the MPH Python Ka-band radar, which did occur, yet the 870 still did an adequate job, detecting the Ka-band at a straight-line distance of 1.5 miles. I even got a couple of seconds advance warning over the crest of a hill which is admirable for a budget class radar detector. The 870 falses less than does the pricey 980, but it did register a couple of false Ka alerts caused by the local oscillators of other junky radar detectors coming its way (which actually is a sure sign of souped up Ka performance).
I haven’t written much on the topic of LIDAR (police laser) speed detection other than to say that its use is quite spotty in the United States. My agency has over 100 traffic radars for the Traffic Division alone, but only two LIDAR units, an LTI 20-20, and a Kustom ProLaser II. The units are heavy, expensive, delicate, and are in for frequent repair, usually after being dropped off the seats of stationary police motorcycles. I never recorded any test results on radar detectors using LIDAR other than to note that all detectors seem to detect LIDAR out to a range of several thousand feet, but only if the LIDAR beam was aimed directly into the detector’s receiving lens.
For an officer to use LIDAR, it must be aimed like a rifle (hence the shoulder stock), and is exhausting for him or her to use for extended periods of time. LIDAR also will operate only in the stationary mode (no moving LIDAR yet!), and unlike traffic radar will not work except at near head on angles to approaching traffic. Because of this angle problem, motorists will most likely encounter LIDAR on long straight stretches of open roadway, where as radar will be most likely positioned over the crest of hill (radar isn't set up like this to “trap” anyone, but to shorten the radar beam’s line of sight so that a distant tractor-trailer doesn’t interfere with a reading of a much nearer, faster and smaller automobile).
LIDAR shoots a nickel-sized beam of light into the headlight lens, front bumper, or front license plate of the vehicle being targeted (at night the headlight are commonly used for targeting since the bumpers and plates can't be seen). When LIDAR is in use, there is no safety in numbers, this technology is just as deadly on the 15th vehicle in back of the pack as it is the pack’s leader. The aimed and invisible LIDAR beam only spreads to about three feet in diameter at the LIDAR’s maximum effective operating range, and when aimed at the common aiming points on the target vehicle, the beam normally isn’t wide enough to reach the radar detector and give the motorist an alert. Instead of using traffic radar’s Doppler shift to determine speed, LIDAR is actually only a distance-measuring device.
Pulling the trigger once fires a series of light beam bursts that measure the shortening distance of the approaching vehicle, or lengthening distance for a receding vehicle. An internal clock measures the time elapsed between the two distances, and using the simple formula of Velocity = Distance/Time, the on-board computer displays a mph speed and range in feet.
Despite the hype about radar detector’s being able to defend against LIDAR, I’ve only witnessed one vehicle slow down after being clocked by LIDAR at a range of about 1500 feet, and only then because I probably starting firing the light beam before I was aligned on the headlight lens, allowing a stray beam to penetrate the windshield and into the detector (incidentally the driver was using an Escort Passport).
There is much more I could write on LIDAR, but suffice it to say that no detector offers any defense against LIDAR, and this is true of the Bel 870 as well. When enforcing speed limits with LIDAR, too many radar detector equipped motorists have complained that their detectors never made a sound, and some were skeptical that a speed-measuring device had even clocked them. For those few who may have received an alert, it was far to late to correct themselves when the detector finally told the tale.
Even so, as radar detectors go, the Bel 870 is an good choice for the budget minded, but there are better performing detectors to be had if one is willing to spend three times more money. But I do recommend this model in situations where expense is the first priority.
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
tejones
|
|
Member: Thomas Jones
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Reviews written: 11
Trusted by: 11 members
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.