Deanski

OK All, here is the official reply from K40 in reply to some that have posted somewhat slanted test or have a personal gain.

You’re e-mail to K40 customer service regarding the disparaging comments made by an individual on forums.rennlist.com was recently forwarded to my attention. Based on some of the comments made by P-Carr944, and the fact he resides in Tacoma, WA, we believe this individual is part of a group that promotes and markets another laser jammer product manufactured overseas called the Laser Pro Park. Unfortunately, there is little that can be done regarding his posts other than what you and others are currently doing by sharing your positive experiences. The Internet is an open forum, and too often people believe what they read. It would serve others well to always suspect the people who are going out of there way to maliciously disparage others. Without question, there is almost always an agenda involved. This case is no different.

What’s interesting about this individual is that in another thread he claims K40 threatened legal action against him and his group to stop showing a video of our product. No such thing ever happened. What is true is that K40 last year sought legal remedies against Radar Roy from Radarbusters.com (whom P-Carr944 is not affiliated with), because of his erroneous testing of our new K40 Calibre system, a product he did not offer for sale through his website. As an online retailer of our competitors, Roy’s website had no basis or legal right to test products outside of the ones he offers. It’s a violation of fair competition, and as such was quickly remedied. As part of the agreement, K40 insisted that his forum site be banned from discussing our products, especially considering he does not offer them (K40 does not sell to online retailers). As you can imagine, it can’t keep others from spreading erroneous rumors and lies about our company on other websites.

As far as testing goes, the K40 Calibre system was tested shortly after its release by Speed Measurement Laboratories, the foremost authority on radar and laser speed measurement testing. A copy of this report is attached, and also available on our website www.K40.com. Please note that all of our competitors utilize SML for product field evaluation tests, including Radar Roy. Additionally, there are several 3rd party magazine reviews regarding the Calibre system on our website for download. K40 does not advertise in of these publications, nor sponsors product testing, so when publications contact us to review our products they’re done with no affiliation to K40.

We appreciate your concerns and continued support of our product. Your willingness to contact us first before jumping to conclusions is unique in this world. If you wish to discuss this matter further, or have additional questions, feel free to contact me at (800) 323-6768.



Regards,

Kevin Fryer
Marketing Director
K40 Electronics
600 Tollgate Road Suite A
Elgin, IL 60123
(847) 888-7200 Fax (847) 888-7094
www.K40.com

Regards,

Deanski

mglobe

Way to go Dean. Their reply certainly doesn't fit the story we've been hearing from other parties. Maybe we can get rid of all the noise we've had to listen to and have honest and open discussions based on fact instead.

mal28

sorry, but I do not buy it.

he claims Radar Roy erroneously tested the K40, what does this mean?

also claims radar roy could not legally test the k40, is this true? any lawyers care to comment

Note also that Guys of Lidar, in their large test of Jammers, did not include the k40, why not? (they do not sell any product that I know of)


I am bothered that K40 banned any discussion of their product by posters like you and I on Radarbusters.com. This raises questions of free speech. What if we were prohibited from discussing a specific product on this forum? Doesn't that defeat the intent of an open free forum?

boolala

hey,, mal28, don't you think that you should be at least as interested in knowing if pcar does indeed promote a competing product without telling us of his conflict of interest?

mal28

ye,but that dose not change my views . Why dose k40 not permit a free discussion of their products on radaebusters.com? the people who post there do not sell products.

mal28

I might add that I had a k40 on my 996 and was happy with it, But as a physician, I depend on a free and open discussion of the latest advances in medicine to best treat my patients, What if a large drug company told a medical journal that they could not publish letters or info about their drugs?

Deanski

Let's remember that K40's system has been one of the best out there along with Valentine which many swear by.

The email was to inform and to provide results from "SML" as to what they find as to it's use and how well it may or may not work.

Sure, it's from a marketing director, but still, he does provide several points.

I know that my K40 has worked as they claim, nothing more. I'm sure V1 users will also say the same.

As to "Jammers", it was not to include the jammer to my knowledge, just the detector.

Regards,
Deanski

CBejbl

"You're email..."

or

"Your email..."

S4to911

"...free and open discussion..." in our most prominent medical journals?

Read the op-ed page of today's (5/29/07) WSJ, brother physician, and you may be singing a different tune.

In terms of this discussion, let someone who has tried both, and has no personal axe to grind on either side, do the testing.

Just for the record, I got nailed twice in one day by instant-on Ka with my cordless solo s2 a few weeks ago. I guess it's back to the old clunky looking V1...

FotoVeloce

Nice catch, I 'read' right past that the first time.

I'm still on the fence about all this stuff. I do know my lowly Escort 8500 likely saved me from a talk with the contible this morning on my way to work, but I'd like to have something along the lines of arrows.

Maybe I'll just buy a basic radar sniffer for the rear, rip out the display and mount it up front so I can see both. Sort of a cheap-bastages vesion of a Valentine or perm-mount K40.

DJ23

Thanks Jim for a great report. I'll stick with my K40 as I always have.

Jay

mal28

from WSJ"The behavior of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) is a case in point, when it rushed onto its Web site a limited and flawed analysis of safety concerns around the diabetes drug ..."

the data is there,Dr Nisson just reported the data. the point is that the NEJM will allow dissenting opinions to be published in follow up letters, does K40 allow this?

Deanski

You're welcome! I too love the way it works, and how nice it's "out of the way" looking. Only the LED's along with alerts or voice or both all work very well.

As I said, some would rather go with a simple V1 mounted on the visor or as others have, found very unique ways to hide it and let it still do the job.

No matter if it's a V1, K40 or other type, as long as you're protected is what counts.

So far, I get a few false hits along I-95, but I know them now. It's that odd warble alert that get's your attention when a laser is in use as opposed to K, KA, X band radar. Both front and rear work very very well for me and I feel that the system is worth the price of the unit plus install.

The only thing I wish they (K40) would have done was make it so we could upgrade the firmware for better detection or any updated radar guns soon to be used out in the field by state and local police.

Regards,
Deanski

caf

I agree that PCar944 seems to have an axe to grind in his many posts on radar/laser detectors (he doesn't seem to post much on any other issue).

Nonetheless, this statement by K40 bothers me:

"What is true is that K40 last year sought legal remedies against Radar Roy from Radarbusters.com (whom P-Carr944 is not affiliated with), because of his erroneous testing of our new K40 Calibre system, a product he did not offer for sale through his website. As an online retailer of our competitors, Roy’s website had no basis or legal right to test products outside of the ones he offers. It’s a violation of fair competition, and as such was quickly remedied."

So anyone who is not a retailer of their product has no legal right to test it? How ludicrous. It does seem like K40 is being very defensive, trying to shut down testing or opinions that they don't approve of. I seriously doubt that any test provided by one of their retailers could be considered objective (if they are anything but glowing in their review, they probably won't be a K40 retailer for long).

Nine9Sixer

regarding the legal action, the only thing i can think of is a Lanham Act-type false advertisement claim. that if 'testing' can fall under the rubric of advertisement, whether a retailer can be seen as trying to dupe the public under the guise of objective testing criteria. although i think disclaimers would sovle that issue.

in the end, i think K40's response was a bit unprofessional, especially in publicly surmising that someone on a message board is working for a competitor, whether it's true or not.