E.Molinari on Trackman vs Flightscope

[Frans@France]

My problem with this whole debate for a while has been that there is no known standard that we are basing accuracy off of. I’ve got a couple “high tech” distance measuring tools. They’re great, they save time, and are usually spot on accurate… but they can and do get “off”. No problem, I’ll just pull out the measuring tape or 4’ ruler or calibration stick and check/recalibrate. To my knowledge we can’t do that with these LMs.

We can't do that because we have no access to the calibration settings of the LM but with the standard "digital" tuning fork those LM can be calibrated and even must be calibrated every x months.

I don’t know if it’s even possible, but I’d like to see a robotic (Pingman, Iron Byron) standard setup. Have the robot swing with a zero face, zero path, zero attack angle, specific loft, etc., and then see what these machines record.

Yes, can be done without any problem. However when I tried to raise money to do this suddenly every owner of such a LM was not very keen to really test it. Most owners rather not known how good/bad their machine really is or even worse that the public will learn about it!

I don’t think it’s that great of a test to randomly place two competing LMs side-by-side and then deem one or the other “accurate” because they do not have identical (or near identical) numbers.

If the two operate at the same (radar) freq. they will interfeare with each other. Only a radar and a photo based can be tested side-by- side.

I like the debate. I like that there are two major players competing in this market. I like that each is striving and investing to be as accurate as possible. I like that they are continuing to develop better products.

Me too but most are scared to really debate this! See the replies I got about the Acceleration profiles! Or the reponse Tee got when he questions the definition of how/when and how long AoA is measured. etc..

 

[mjh116]

I'd like to know how different they really are. I plan on purchasing a Trackman or X2 next year. Anybody have a nice list of pros and cons for each system?

I would talk to Brian about Tman and Mike Jacobs about Fscope. They both use and believe in the products. I know Mike Jacobs recently spoke about his opinion of Fscope on his site.. two great teachers teaching with competing radars and both seem to love them. Either way it surely beats video... technology in golf has come a long way and we're all getting better instruction because of it. A big thanks to Brian and Mike!

 

[mgranato]

We can't do that because we have no access to the calibration settings of the LM but with the standard "digital" tuning fork those LM can be calibrated and even must be calibrated every x months.

I guess more to my point is how are the calibration settings determined? I would imagine the specifics are fiercely protected, but I'd like to know what they are based on. I'm quite ignorant about the finer points of how this radar tech works and how it's maintained.

When a unit needs recalibrating, what are the signs? Does it gradually loose accuracy incrementally in such a way that it's virtually unnoticeable until it becomes obvious?

Yes, can be done without any problem. However when I tried to raise money to do this suddenly every owner of such a LM was not very keen to really test it. Most owners rather not known how good/bad their machine really is or even worse that the public will learn about it!

This I understand.

If the two operate at the same (radar) freq. they will interfeare with each other. Only a radar and a photo based can be tested side-by- side.

I've heard this, and I've also seen photos and reviews of two units operating side-by-side without reported difficulty. But if there can be noise, would both units suffer?

Me too but most are scared to really debate this! See the replies I got about the Acceleration profiles! Or the reponse Tee got when he questions the definition of how/when and how long AoA is measured. etc..

I wish I had the expertise/knowledge to join the debate. The "under the hood" nuts and bolts of this tech is not something I'm at all familiar with, but I do like trying to learn about it and listening to the experts weigh in. This much I can grasp... LM=GOOD for golf.

 

[DCgolf]

Who among us is going to be objective enough to argue against their own investment? Better yet, who among us would detach themselves from their own self interest to offer an unbiased assesment? If we really want straight talk here, we would need a panel of NON owners, devoid of any input from anyone being sponsored by the product. Man if you got 25K on the line, ur gonna argue up and down the first fairway about its superiority.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Who among us is going to be objective enough to argue against their own investment? Better yet, who among us would detach themselves from their own self interest to offer an unbiased assesment? If we really want straight talk here, we would need a panel of NON owners, devoid of any input from anyone being sponsored by the product. Man if you got 25K on the line, ur gonna argue up and down the first fairway about its superiority.

I disagree 100%.

I could sell my machine tomorrow and put the money toward my mortgage if it was inaccurate.

If you don't know how a machine is supposed to work in the field, how the hell can you do a decent test.

You can't.

I am the least sponsored, semi-well known golf pro ever. I'll you straight up. I was thinking all afternoon about a student I ruined in the late 90's....you wanna hear about it? I have done this sort of thing on this site 99 times. That's 99 more times than most sites run by pros have done it.

Geezz...Flightscope takes some wild swings at TrackMan and nobody says a peep.

To be honest, I hope everyone sells there machines for scrap parts tomorrow. I'll be the only one with a clue.

 

[ej20]

Honestly,I doubt any of them are totally accurate and full proof.

It would probably take NASA engineers and millions of dollars of research to come up with a device that is close to 100% accurate on shots not just COG but all over the clubface.It would probably cost 100 times the price of a Trackman as well.

 

[Frans@France]

I disagree 100%.

I could sell my machine tomorrow and put the money toward my mortgage if it was inaccurate.

If you don't know how a machine is supposed to work in the field, how the hell can you do a decent test.

You can't.

I am the least sponsored, semi-well known golf pro ever. I'll you straight up. I was thinking all afternoon about a student I ruined in the late 90's....you wanna hear about it? I have done this sort of thing on this site 99 times. That's 99 more times than most sites run by pros have done it.

Me too, I would sell it in a heartbeat. Not like it would be the first time I sold one because a machine was more PR then techno!

I have no forum about fitting so don't have a place to tell about it but I also still think about those that I fitted incorrectly in the "before"-period

 

[Frans@France]

I guess more to my point is how are the calibration settings determined?

The radar transceiver module received special constructed waves from a the tuning "fork" with precise values. If the unit doesn't return those exact same values it needs calibration.

When a unit needs recalibrating, what are the signs? Does it gradually loose accuracy incrementally in such a way that it's virtually unnoticeable until it becomes obvious?

With an unit reporting in tenths of degrees you do not want to wait until it becomes obvious

... LM=GOOD for golf.

A good LM is indeed

 

[mgjordan]

I'd like to know how different they really are. I plan on purchasing a Trackman or X2 next year. Anybody have a nice list of pros and cons for each system?

My email response from Flightscope:

Hi Matt

There is no measurable performance differences between the 2 radars. Both use phased array Doppler at 10,5Ghz and provide you with the same information. The only difference will be that FlightScope has a much lower cost of ownership due to our in house manufacturing plant and also high sales volume. We also have an integration with E6 simulated golf courses that will enhance your experience indoors. I will have my colleague Megan send you a proposal.

We can also set up an online demo of the software and have a look at future releases.

Regards

David Nel

 

[DCgolf]

I disagree 100%.

I could sell my machine tomorrow and put the money toward my mortgage if it was inaccurate.

If you don't know how a machine is supposed to work in the field, how the hell can you do a decent test.

You can't.

I am the least sponsored, semi-well known golf pro ever. I'll you straight up. I was thinking all afternoon about a student I ruined in the late 90's....you wanna hear about it? I have done this sort of thing on this site 99 times. That's 99 more times than most sites run by pros have done it.

Geezz...Flightscope takes some wild swings at TrackMan and nobody says a peep.

To be honest, I hope everyone sells there machines for scrap parts tomorrow. I'll be the only one with a clue.

I rescetfully disagree but will exercise restraint and the professional courtesy of not debating it with you publicly on YOUR site. As a member of an organization with a code of ethics, I treat the priveledge of posting on your site the same way I treat the priveledge of playing at anotherprofessional's course-with respect. It would be less than professional of me to expect respect from readers of sites on which I post, if I did offer that reciprocity.

 

[gmbtempe]

I see pro flightscope opinions from people who are aligned with that company, and pro TM opinions from those aligned with TM. I am embarressed to admit I thought TM was doing much more measuring than it was calculating until late last year. Your numbers are only as good as the algorythm that is being applied in many of the readings, and from what I understand those change with different models and softward updates.

This of course assumes perfectly centered contact, which we know does not happen very much.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Greg....do you know how to read radar raw data? Do you you know anyone who does?

Do you know video is fraught with parallax issues? Do you know how to read the number on off center strikes?

How many thousand balls have you seen hit on any of them?


This list is what is measured vs. calculated, and as I have said 1000 times, the clubface normal, the top of the D-Plane, is the SUM of the effect of the clubface normal during the whole interval. Camera does nothing to solve this and if you had all day and a super camera and two angles to resolve the parallax, you'd still need a Paul Wood or a an Aaron Zick or both to do your math.

 

[Robbierob99]

Side by Side, MY TManIII vs. my club-fitting-buddy's FlightScope: Eerily similar numbers indoors and out across the board. Even AoA was spot on with both machines (either they are BOTH wrong, or both correct, but they were always within less than 0.3º of each other on all the path, swing dir, AoA, launch, dynamic loft, etc etc. The ball flight (yardages, height, etc.) were VERY VERY similar outdoors (the differences were negligible in my opinion) AND still very close to each other indoors, but not quite as close.

FLIGHTSCOPE IS A GREAT MACHINE, but it's still not a Trackman.

Flightscope has some great software features with the acceleration profiles and the all the graphics and whatnot, that's a plus. Trackman's latest software updates have been a huge improvement there I think... It looks great now, still can't have all the graphics and stuff that flightscope has, BUT personally, I just want the absolute most accuracy I can get. The graphics are for the club-fitters and salesmen in my opinion... I don't need them... I like them, just don't need them.

HOWEVER, my flightscope buddy has shown that if he skips a step or is anything but extremely thorough and exact on setting up the FlightScope and the Target the numbers get screwy, really screwy. With Trackman there is NO guess work with setting it up and Targeting it. Seems like this should be an easy fix for FlightScope, have some check points programmed into the software or something, but this is what happened in our experiments.

I would say my Trackman gives some funny smash factor numbers as I way too often (like almost every time with a driver) see over 1.50 with driver down to even a 4iron. But I've consulted the TMan guys and they say it's not wrong so I'll take their word for it. I've got another buddy with a TManII and his does the same thing with smash factor (for us its not even in the top 3 of the numbers we care about, so it doesn't really matter to us, but still... wish I was more confident in the number). We can't figure it out, I thought over 1.50 was supposedly an aberration yet we see it 80% of the time or better with everyone who hits drivers on our machines.

BUT Basically, side by side, my flightscope buddy was using my TManIII to make sure his target was set correctly. Don't get me wrong, he normally (like better than 90% of the time) succeeded on the first try, but still, that's how he was confirming he had done correctly. That would make me worry. Outdoors with a target outside of say 100yards, this was a non-issue. INDOORs was the only time this became an issue.

AGAIN, FLIGHTSCOPE IS A GREAT MACHINE, but it's still not a Trackman.


There's my 2¢

 

[Robbierob99]

One review that I haven’t seen is a side-by-side of the same brand monitor. I would be willing to bet that more times than not two of the “same” monitors will not produce the same numbers. I wonder which would get the nod for being accurate. I could be way off on this, but I’d like to see how identical a row of twins actually are.

I do this almost 3-4x a week with my buddy (recently qualified for the US Open) and his TManII. So my TManIII & his TManII... The numbers across the board, ACROSS THE BOARD, are, within the margin of error, always EXACT.

Club Path numbers for example are generally either EXACT or within +/- 0.2º
Spin Numbers with a driver never worse than +/- 200rpm
Yardages at better than 300 yards always within 2 yards. Under 200 almost always less than 1 yard difference.

I'll sum this one up... From my experience doing this, Side by Side with 2 trackmEn is pointless, you're going to ALWAYS get the same numbers. We have fun with it because we'll try to hit crazy shots and make them different... Still no, they always match out.

 

[Frans@France]

....The graphics are for the club-fitters.....

Being happy without them!

I would say my Trackman gives some funny smash factor numbers as I way too often (like almost every time with a driver) see over 1.50 with driver down to even a 4iron. But I've consulted the TMan guys and they say it's not wrong so I'll take their word for it. I've got another buddy with a TManII and his does the same thing with smash factor (for us its not even in the top 3 of the numbers we care about, so it doesn't really matter to us, but still... wish I was more confident in the number). We can't figure it out, I thought over 1.50 was supposedly an aberration yet we see it 80% of the time or better with everyone who hits drivers on our machines.

re-read the newsletter and part about the speed difference between toe and heel. and the consequence on smashfactor when you hit the ball with the fastest moving head part and the smash is calculated using the "middle" clubhead speed.

If you hit it using the faster moving toe @103mph while the smash is calculated using the middle speed @100 mph then if the "real" smash was 1.40 the reported smash will be 1.44 (1,40*103/100)

 

[Robbierob99]

Being happy without them!



re-read the newsletter and part about the speed difference between toe and heel. and the consequence on smashfactor when you hit the ball with the fastest moving head part and the smash is calculated using the "middle" clubhead speed.

If you hit it using the faster moving toe @103mph while the smash is calculated using the middle speed @100 mph then if the "real" smash was 1.40 the reported smash will be 1.44 (1,40*103/100)

I've read it! I don't hit it on the toe over 80% of the time. I know my buddy, who is a pro, and everyone else who hits on our machines don't either. But that's the best explanation I've got at the moment... SO I'm going with that for now!!! Thanks!

 

[mgranato]

I do this almost 3-4x a week with my buddy (recently qualified for the US Open) and his TManII. So my TManIII & his TManII... The numbers across the board, ACROSS THE BOARD, are, within the margin of error, always EXACT.

Club Path numbers for example are generally either EXACT or within +/- 0.2º
Spin Numbers with a driver never worse than +/- 200rpm
Yardages at better than 300 yards always within 2 yards. Under 200 almost always less than 1 yard difference.

I'll sum this one up... From my experience doing this, Side by Side with 2 trackmEn is pointless, you're going to ALWAYS get the same numbers. We have fun with it because we'll try to hit crazy shots and make them different... Still no, they always match out.

Very cool. Very impressive. This is the first inter squad scrimmage I’ve seen talked about for either brand. I’m glad you posted that up.

Your side-by-sides with FS isn’t the first I’ve seen like that, but I’m sure you know there are some out there that report the exact opposite. I would hope a wider sampling of properly calibrated units would be closer to your experiences. Interesting about your buddy’s setup deal, which model does he run?

Funny your comments about the two graphics interfaces. I prefer the TM interface on the laptop, and REALY like the TM3E app’s ability to use the setup camera. The FS’s graphics interface on the app is my favorite mode of operation.

 

[gmbtempe]

I do this almost 3-4x a week with my buddy (recently qualified for the US Open) and his TManII. So my TManIII & his TManII... The numbers across the board, ACROSS THE BOARD, are, within the margin of error, always EXACT.

Club Path numbers for example are generally either EXACT or within +/- 0.2º
Spin Numbers with a driver never worse than +/- 200rpm
Yardages at better than 300 yards always within 2 yards. Under 200 almost always less than 1 yard difference.

I'll sum this one up... From my experience doing this, Side by Side with 2 trackmEn is pointless, you're going to ALWAYS get the same numbers. We have fun with it because we'll try to hit crazy shots and make them different... Still no, they always match out.

How can you accurately allign the two devices for one shot?

 

[cwdlaw223]

I see pro flightscope opinions from people who are aligned with that company, and pro TM opinions from those aligned with TM. I am embarressed to admit I thought TM was doing much more measuring than it was calculating until late last year. Your numbers are only as good as the algorythm that is being applied in many of the readings, and from what I understand those change with different models and softward updates.

This of course assumes perfectly centered contact, which we know does not happen very much.

Face angle is timing. Just like the guys that claim rate of closure is something magical. It's still timing as well.

What I want when I use Trackman is my path and AoA put into numbers that I can feel. Otherwise, it's just a guess about impact (people can guess correctly and there have been great players without such devices). Once you get your path down it's much easier to dial in the face angle. It's a tool to cut down on practice time for me. It's done wonders for my game. The term educated hands has much better meaning when using these devices!

Not everyone needs to know their Tman numbers, but it's a very effective tool to figure out what's happening at impact.

Tman factors in the effect of an off center shot for its face angle calculation. Some people don't like that fact and just want the reading at first touch or some other definition of face angle. That's doesn't make Tman's calculation wrong. The devil is in the definition of the term face angle. BTW - face angle and path are always changing in time and space. What micro second of a micro second (1/200th for the impact interval itself) do you want to use to define face angle? I suspect that answer is complicated. I'll take the ease and function of use of a Tman over a used phantom camera and video drawing that cannot see behind the ball (neither can Tman) and deal with the effect of impact (Tman does deal with the effect of impact).

 

[mgranato]

How can you accurately allign the two devices for one shot?