It’s good to be back. Plenty of content coming soon.

It really gets down to the algorithms between the systems. Both are calculated in relation to ball flight and testing shows that spin, launch and ball speed are very similar. I think quad does a little better job of impact location, but only if the stickers are precisely placed.

If I go to a fitter that uses the TrackMan, but does not offer the TrackMan special golf balls, should I be concerned about the accuracy of the fitting?

That would be a great test for sure!!

It’s great to be back 😃

That’s correct. Centre of mass will produce different readings.

Center of geometry. Radar has no idea where mass is located.

@@keisarinn thanks for the clarification 🙄

That’s awesome to hear. I’d be happy to check the Wilson’s for you. Cheers.

The quad has 2 cameras pointed at the club face while the Trackman has a camera pointed at the club from 2.1m behind the hitting zone.

@@SydneyGolfTech thanks for the reply. How does the camera see that if it isnt face on? How can trackman see the face contact when it is behind the ball (gcquad on the side)? Honest question

@@vincentkingsdale8334 I don’t know and I worry a little about the accuracy of the Trackman.

@@SydneyGolfTech fair enough. Thanks. Good video too.

Why is it that simple? Do you believe TM measures club face data better outdoors than it does indoors?

Trackman has told us that a driver will only result in 1 revolution of the ball before it hits the screen so hence why the RCT ball works. My testing shows that the RCT picks up the spin while a normal ball is not read all the time.

@@SydneyGolfTech I'll have to try the RCT ball as my mevo plus required you to apply small aluminum dots on the ball and face the away from the mevo when hitting indoors. Problem is that repeated strikes on the same part of the ball led to accelerated ball failures.

I’m not currently offering remote lessons but I am thinking about joining Skillest to provide the service.

Let us know if u do as I would be interested

I agree with all of what you have said. If foresight had better software it would be a much nicer user experience.

I have 4m of flight and in thousands of shots, rarely see a missread or guess on the spin number. RCT works really well.

@@SydneyGolfTech Thanks for your response. 13’ is longer than optimal (12’). So should capture most of the shots and you should try by adding even more lumen (lightings) to see if Trackman can capture even more impact location to capture spin axis better. I personally have had a lot success after OERT firmware update (although that was 2-3yrs ago, I haven’t been able to play/test these days) in my enclosure (12~13’ from ball to screen, TrackMan 4 and Quad).

Thanks mate. Hope you are well.

I don’t quite understand what you mean.

@@SydneyGolfTech if you look at the SD on the trackman data your distances on some shots were +/- 8m. That’s a lot off the quoted figure. Quite a wide error by trackman.

@@myopenmind527 SD does not mean how close the guess is. It is the standard deviation of all recorded shots.

Quad is tuned for one ball? The quad works with every ball on every shot. If that was the case, there would not have been more Quads (nearly 60%) on the range at The Players than Trackmans.

@@SydneyGolfTech Do dimple designs affect aerodynamics? What about composition? 2 piece vs. 4 piece? You’re saying when every ball has the same launch conditions and spin they also fly the same in the real world? Are some balls better in the wind? Think about it. It applies the same flight algorithm to every ball regardless of design. Perhaps every ball really is the same and there’s just a bunch of marketing going on. That’s why an outdoor test comparing trajectories of different balls would be interesting. ps - The reason for more Quads on the range could vary. Quads, AFAIK are provided free at PGA events. Quads provide better club data due to the stickers and cameras. Quads are very portable. Quads have tended to be much better indoors in the past than Trackman. Pros get their distances from practice rounds, rangefinders, weather on the day, Trackman and a lifetime of experience. On the course during events it's always Trackman providing ball flight data. Why not use Quads there too? Because they don't track reality. Whenever I've seen GCQuad tested vs. a Laser Rangefinder there's always a variance.

@@-Thunder I’m sorry but it’s clear you don’t know how the quad works so I’ll explain it to you as best as I can. It measures (not guesses) the ball from a stationary position to another position in flight. Therefore all of your above mentioned points are taken into consideration when working out where the ball will go. So like I said before, the quad works with all balls. So for example, over the measured distance, the range ball will already have a slower speed than say a Pro V1 and therefore it will not fly as far. I hope this helps with your understanding of how the quad works.

@@SydneyGolfTech You make a lot of assumptions. GC Quad captures a few inches of flight data at 10,000 FPS and calculates from there. Perhaps that actually does work with any dimple pattern but I'm guessing just like airfoils perform differently so do dimple patterns. So the profile of the flight trajectory and landing angle shouldn't be the same with different dimple designs and patterns UNLESS dimple design is irrelevant. Is that really so tough to agree with?

@@-Thunder dimple patterns have an effect on launch, spin and speed which is all measured.

Quad algorithm is based on measured face contact and ball launch. There is no product on the market that does a better job with club numbers than Quad. Trackman struggles with face data indoors and outdoors but does an amazing job of tracking the ball when outside. There’s no better product on the market when it comes to outdoor tracking. I’ll take the low spin generosity with extremely accurate club data every day as a fitter.

@@SydneyGolfTech the ball flight algorithm uses 5 parameters : bs, sa, spin,launch and HL.prefer trackman ball flight algorithm which is based on work done by optimal flight. But yes agree quad is much better indoors and have gc3 myself which is very similar to quad. Only issue I have is is those low spin drives

@@russellfothergill9082 the problem with the Trackman algorithm is that it’s guessing most of the 5 parameters indoors. Quad doesn’t guess any. I have had the gc3 and quad together and they are different too.

@@SydneyGolfTech but for most of your testing especially with the ract ball they were aligned. Ie the 5 measured parameters agreed. They were then ploughed into different algorithms to come up with the ball flight model. I believe trackman ball flight model to be superior due to the outside testing they have done observing how far a 150 bs with 12 launch etc will carry and behave in temperature of 25 with little wind. Quad is good for ego but bad when you need to carry that bunker irl.

The longest shot you can possibly hit it a “hooky draw”. 43 years of observing feels and seeing my ball fly gives me a really good chance of knowing how my ball will fly when I hit it. While I’ll admit I think the quad can over inflate the distance on a low spinning drive, it never misses the spin direction. The Trackman sometimes will show a hook when the ball was clearly going to fade due to a low heel strike.

Lol. It’s free to come and visit 😉

my worry is that visiting would result in being very not-free 💸🤣

Did you watch the whole video or tune out early? RCT is in the video.

As I stated in the video, I’m not particularly versed in Trackman but I know that my Trackman was set up by Trackman and not by me. I’d dare say that there are no problems with the settings, but I could be wrong. I also know that the TM struggles with impact location and this is where the quad is far better. I haven’t had a TM out on course, but I know when I have taken the quad, it’s extremely accurate. I also have a great grasp of what my ball does after 43 years of golf and 23 of them as a professional.

The carry distance on that shot you reference was so short because of the spin axis. Also there's a few reasons you can get unrealistically high efficiency numbers from GCQ, the biggest ones being that the stickers are not placed quite correctly or the toe of the club catches the mat slightly before impact. The numbers you quoted would suggest the latter with your actual club speed probably being around 102mph. Normally the maximum efficiency/smash from a FS monitor is going to be around 1.45 vs 1.5 on the TM. If you're getting higher than 1.45 that usually means either a sticker placement issue or something caused the toe to decelerate shortly before impact.

@@williamhumber5890 like I said in the video, I didn’t hit that shot. I’m very in tune with my ball flight. It was a missread. Also, my sticker placement is extremely accurate all the time. I know the importance of it and hence why I make sure it’s good.

@@SydneyGolfTech We're in agreement here, the shot the other poster referenced was so short in carry because the spin axis from Trackman was way off; not because of the launch conditions that he highlighted but because of the one he ignored. As for the sticker placement, I didn't see any unusual numbers in your video that would suggest there was any issue with the fiducials, I was referring to the experience of the other poster where he mentioned getting an efficiency of 1.52. When that happens it's usually because of an error with the sticker placement or that the turf slowed down the toe immediately before impact. What you found in this video is exactly why we just saw Trackman release a hybrid photometric/radar unit in the Trackman IO, there are just inherent limitations to purely radar units indoors.

Foresight low backspin (less than 2500rpm) algorithm is kicking into inflating the carry distance anywhere from 5-20yds farther that’s why. Trackman carry is more in line with real life.

The quad relies on an algorithm, while the Trackman tracks the ball. Just because the quad takes photos of the ball doesn’t mean the algorithm is correct all of the time. Ball speed and spin readings were almost identical, so I’m not sure how quad can be superior in every metric.

@@SydneyGolfTech this isn’t a criticism of you as a content creator.. But the GC quad IS industry standard. This isn’t an anecdotal statement this is industry wide. As one of the few fitters in Syd who use GC I think you’re doing yourself a disservice suggesting that TM is an equal product to GC. Because the fact that you do use GC separates you from club champion (formerly Pureform) because they use TM and things like spin rates peak heights, carry distance make all the difference to club fits and GC is more accurate.

@@jakedavid4304 I’m always open to discussion and I do use quad in my fittings and will continue to do so. What’s really interesting is that the vast majority of tour players use their quad without any dots which says they are looking at ball data.

@@SydneyGolfTech the club face dots are only two Oriente and calibrate the camera to accurately locate the ball strike position on the club face… On any given day, the player isn’t going to be worrying about where the balls hitting the club face more so the averages of all speed, spin rate, carry, and total distance given the conditions of each days play which will tell them what clubs they need to hit from what distance given the conditions etc. Most players would have a pretty typical ball striking position anyway and are good enough to know that if they strike the ball a little bit lower on the face. It’s going to spin more if they strike the ball a little bit higher on the iron face it might not travel as far because the spin rate might be lower for irons, in the toe equals more draw shape and in the heel is a fade.. they don’t need club dots to tell them where they hit the ball that information isn’t needed in the range session before a tee time etc…

@@jakedavid4304 TM is definitely an equal product to GC overall. They both are superior to each other in its own ways. Quad is better for club data + indoor usage for sure but quite inaccurate in terms of calculating carry/total distances especially for longer clubs/higher speed guys. Trackman definitely dominates in this area as it actually follows the ball - which gives it a much bigger advantage on ball data + outdoor usage. I'd say that Quad is "industry standard" due to the fact that it has easier setup, gives accurate club data when necessary and the built in screen is just convenient for immediate feedback during range practice. This is an objective view - disregarding all financial partnerships that might be going on behind the scenes. Ball data wise - I'd take it from TM any day if I'm outdoors. I've personally seen guys with 180-ish ball speed going 400 yards on quad because they could launch it high (>17 deg) with like 1200 spin @ sea level. Let's not even debate whether this is actually accurate😂