Mevo+ vs GC2 Wedge Test

[wbond]

The video is now up for the wedge. 7 Iron was posted yesterday.
Mevo consistently 4 MPH faster, consistently higher LA 1-2 degrees, consistently less back spin. Faster speed and less back spin led to longer carry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7owlV5ZdfQ

[GungHoGolf]

Hope they were using a metallic sticker on the ball - I asked the question on the comments of the vid.

[pwade3]

I think they are as Chung seems to be placing the ball a particular way otherwise I don’t think he would be even bending over to place it. You finding similar numbers in regards to backspin being off?

[GungHoGolf]

I'm pretty happy with spin numbers, very close to SkyTrak except with driver where they're often too high. Without stickers, spin with wedges is definitely low. Ball speed against SkyTrak was very close, with Mevo+ usually being a bit higher.

[pwade3]

Does anyone know if at the tee to screen 8’ setting, if you were say 10’ would it only read 8’ of flight? Or if you were set at 13’ and only had 11’ would it be looking for that 13’ of flight?

[pwade3]

GungHoGolf I went back and had a look at your advance analysis or spreadsheet (anyone who has not used his advanced analytics should) between the Skytrak and Mevo+ and noticed that there certainly was not the big discrepancy in spin rate and carry distances between the two. Wonder why with the GC2. I have seen comparisons between the GC2 and Skytrak and they were not that far apart. Is this an environment issue with Mevo+. I have a Skytrak and I’m a 5.4 index. I know my yardages. My unit is solid but has its misses and a few questionable data, but for the most part numbers are very good. Your test showed pretty good comparison. Something seems off with Cory’s test.

[GungHoGolf]

I agree that something seems off with that test. Radar is pretty good with ball speed and total spin indoors, as long as stickers are used.

[games]

I thought one potential for discrepancy was both MEVO+ and GC2 were on the floor, below the mat. But, GC2 right next to the ball while MEVO+ eight feet behind. And, no mention as to whether they adjusted MEVO+ for the mat height.

[a98cr125]

I was wondering what the heck was going on. Is is TGC though? I know nothing about TGC but if it is not getting the exact MEVO+ numbers that it is a worthless test. I am still getting almost identical numbers on MEVO+ vs HD Golf which we have proven over and over to be very accurate. Just my two cents. I would be more than happy to do more videos with more clubs and hits etc.

[ScottBGKY]

The GC2 was reading low 4000 and sub 4000 spin on his 7 iron shots from that test if I remember right. Seemed pretty low for a 7 iron.

[Dax]

It sounded like they were going to be posting some more videos and those would be good to see as well. I must be honest, I was also surprised with the ball speed difference as well as the spin difference to the point where something did seem off, as with all other testing that I have seen with radar to camera these are usually very very close (to the point that total distance is also very close).

[trumb1mj]

A bit off topic but... when you plug data from the GC2 into the flightscope optimizer do we see matching/close carry numbers?

[Bubba22]

The most important differences between the GC2 and the Mevo plus on the videos are the spin and spin axis. The radars will just not be as accurate as cameras indoors in measuring spin and axis tilt. The wedge and 7 iron videos show definite difference in side spin and backspin. Other parameters are pretty close. The spin axis and total spin will determine the amount of curvature as well as distance. For indoor simulation this difference is acceptable but should be understood. I would love to see a corresponding video at an outdoor range comparing the GC2 and the Mevo+, where the Mevo + will be better able to track the ball over a longer distance.

[Kevin Blenkhorn]

I agree...I have hit tons of balls both on the GC2 and the TM4 at the golf store where Trung works..I find the GC2 more accurate for spin than the TM4 indoors..If your launch angle on the TM4 is higher than 11 degrees I find ot always reads higher spin even if you hit it a bit high of center which I know for a fact produces lower spin on my driver. ( and my driver is only a 5 degree) I was able to predict within about 200 + or - on the gc2 on just about every drive depending on where I hit it on the face and I have hit 1000's of balls indoors.

[88GODC]

The carry distance is misleading.

Annoying that par 2 pro who have been doing this for years dont mention its software driven and seem to attribute it to the device. I would assume its TGC2019 that's off as you would think flightscopes ball flight models are in line with FS optimizer.

On the 7 iron test, run the mevo numbers through flightscope optimizer , much closer to gc2, think I seen maybe a 3/4 yard higher than gc2 rather than the 10+. Which makes me think its TGC getting carry wrong.

Also I'm sceptical of the test here, ball speed at +4?
radar should be spot on, even the $500 mevo has been shown to be accurate. In fact I would trust the radar more than a camera based launch monitor. I took my gc2 to a trackman fitting and ball speed was off by 2/3 mph on driver, in this case gc2 was higher.

Also as mentioned earlier , the 3000 spin 7 irons seem wrong on gc2, that fella seems a decent player , hitting it pretty consistently, very odd.

This whole test seems a little dodgy if you ask me. Maybe some interference somewhere or issue with gc2 or mevo?

As bubba22 says , the spin wont be as accurate as foresight indoors, but it certainly wont be causing carry differences of the likes seen here which is majorly software driven and down to the ball speed difference which is very strange. And outdoors I would expect the mevo to be extremely accurate.

[Dax]

88GODC I tend to agree with you, but don’t think Cory had an agenda in doing his test. Your right a video showing it on TGC would have been great with a separate test using FS software when comparing to GC2 similar to all his other testing. In terms of the ball speed difference you note from GC2, I thought that was an error that was addressed by a software update and so depending when you had done your testing could now be resolved.

[88GODC]

Dax
I agree, no agenda, P2P are good guys.
Just a bit surprised it was not mentioned TGC was producing those wildly inflated carry numbers.

With regards the GC2 , my unit was always on the high side compared to radar, not sure why probably individual to my unit as I've hit on multiple GC2s and felt mine was a mph or 2 high.
however I still believe GC2/Q is the best indoor unit around IMO due to its accuracy on spin and axis. But just of the opinion I would trust a radar ball speed (TM / Flightscope) over photometric LM , but likely very very minor differences.

[JackedUpSwing]

Par2pro spreading miss information....

The inflated carry was due to higher ball speeds and lower spin... why would they carry be the same when the GC2 and mevo are measuring differently?????

[Par2Pro]

JackedUpSwing I think that you misunderstood what we had said. We feel that the calculation of the longer ball carry is probably from the higher ball speed and lower spin that the software was showing us. We are not biased towards any sensor or software and are just trying to show what the numbers are coming up for us as.

[JackedUpSwing]

I'm not saying your biased, I'm just stating a fact. Comparing carry is pointless because you guys were using 2 different flight algorithms. Mentioning carry now confuses people who aren't very familiar with launch monitors.

The only things you guys should have been reading off were pure ball data. You guys weren't the only ones to make this same mistake, but you are supposed to be experts in golf simulators and comparing carry distances from 2 different flight algorithms in a video comparing 2 different LM isn't very "expert" of you.

Also, half way through the video you started comparing spin axis versus side spin for some reason

[wbond]

Why are you saying the inflated carry number is due to TGC? It's due to a 4mph increase over the GC2 in combination with a reduced spin rating and those match flightscope trajectory optimizer. The issue is, why is mevo+ reporting higher numbers or is the GC2 under-reporting or both. The person hitting mentioned they carry that club in the 140-145 range and it lines up with the GC2 numbers on his well struck shots for shot 2 and shot 5.

[88GODC]

Plug the 7 iron numbers from mevo into FS optimizer

it is much lower than theTGC carry called out by Cory.
I never said the mevo was not higher however the real difference is not the massive amount called out, tgc is reporting higher carry numbers than the FS optimizer ballflight model .

I suggest you re read my message before getting on your soapbox

[games]

I heard this, too. MEVO was reading higher ball speed and higher spin. When entered into the Flightscope Optimizer (in theory what is running the FS Golf app) the carry numbers were right on top of the carry reported by the GC2.

[88GODC]

Exactly the point I was trying to make, thank you !

[88GODC]

For reference.

7 Iron, shot 1

Mevo
Ball speed 120mph
launch angle V 22
Launch angle H 0
Altitude 0
Spin 4386
spin axis L 3.4

TRAJECTORY OPTIMIZER CARRY 174.7
TGC CARRY 186

SHOT 2
Ball speed 114mph
launch angle V 18
Launch angle H 2
Altitude 0
Spin 4893
spin axis L 9.9

TRACJECTORY OPTIMIZER CARRY 162.2
TGC CARRY 168


Maybe the TGC range being used is at 4000 feet......

[88GODC]

I've not mentioned the gc2 algorithm anywhere. The only point I am trying to make is that the TGC carry which Cory refers to as "mevo carry" is actually way above what those numbers should produce as per FS optimizer

[88GODC]

Also I have to disagree with this comment
"The MAJOR difference they were seeing (over 10 yards) was due to ballspeed and spin."

Shot 1 for example, change ball speed from 120 to 116 and change the spin to 4582 (GC2 Numbers) and the carry is 167

So the raw data produced by both LM's on shot one should produce a difference of 7 yards (167 v 174)

however using the TGC numbers the difference is 18 yards (186 v 168)

Therefore the major portion of the difference is actually the software algorithm.

[Par2Pro]

Sorry for any conflicting info guys, when I say the major difference, I was saying that it appears that it why the difference in GENERAL. Again, we are just trying to test out the system as best as possible and are not saying that it is the unit, the software or the environment - we are just trying to help everyone see what we are seeing.

[Par2Pro]

Hope they were using a metallic sticker on the ball - I asked the question on the comments of the vid.

Yes - we definitely are using the sticker. We are working with FlightScope to ensure we have the optimal setup

[games]

First, we appreciate the side-by-side! The only issue I noted about the setup was whether you adjusted MEVO+ for sitting on the floor while your tester (great swing BTW) hit off an elevated mat.

[Par2Pro]

The floor has a slope due to a drain so we made sure that the top of the mat is level with the bottom of the mevo+