Mevo+ 0.17 Vs Trackman - Indoor Data

[Gresh12]

I had been hesitating moving to 0.17 because of various reported concerns but I've also noticed a number of members here (and on Facebook groups) struggling with accuracy (both thinking Mevo is short and long). I bit the bullet and updated firmware today and got some data versus Trackman.

Test
- Current firmware on both units
- Indoor test with 8' units to ball, there is 20' of ball flight but I had M+ in short indoor mode as that's what I use at home
- Friend of mine hit so I could watch data
- If both units measured all parameters then I kept the shot, if either unit estimated or missed parameters the shot was deleted from both so data is matched to individual shots (of note both devices missed spin on occasion but no other parameters)
- Units were setup side by side so the ball for M+ was slightly further off center than I would have liked (there was a hitting strip in the floor and I couldn't shift the TM) but I did use alignment to center versus middle of room for M+

Observations
- The TM missed spin on a couple shots and the estimated spin turned out pretty darn close to M+ measurement (i.e., TM estimated spin isn't bad) but the couple shots M+ missed spin the estimate was terrible (way too low on irons and way too high on driver). Those of you struggling with short or long distances be sure you are getting measured spin as in my opinion the M+ doesn't estimate it well but measures it just fine.
- To me the measured data is shockingly close (spin axis comment to follow) even if you don't consider the price difference they are getting extremely close in my opinion.
- Spin axis with driver (decent ball speed and not tons of flight) is clearly the most volatile measurement. I suspect the TM is more accurate given it has impact location and gear effect built in to it but radar in general is known to struggle with spin axis indoors.
- The practical differences that people are focused on come down to formulas as much as anything. M+ is a bit long on irons and a bit short on driver even though the measured data is very similar. This comes down to flight algorithms which I didn't test and not sure how well I could (I will note that in the warmup we were getting larger differences before we realized the TM was set at 50* and M+ 77* but we matched them for the test, both were set at sea level)
- Similar to above the offline comes down to flight algorithms so you can debate which is more accurate. A few of the shots ended up in pretty similar spots even when the axis was a bit different. While I appreciate for sim rounds the actual number matters I will say that visually if you are practicing the shots simply looked almost the same on the tracer except for shot 4 on the 7 iron (for what it's worth my buddy didn't think it hooked 25 yards when he hit it)

I've attached the data so I'm not going to go through each parameter as you can judge yourself but my conclusion is the device is very darn good with a decent setup.

[Shankz]

Gresh, thanks for taking the time to do the comparison and then writing it up as well as posting the data(cant open it on my iPad but I will take your word on it) With a little time and patience hopefully everyone will be able to find the setup that works best for them.

[tinker812]

thanks! great stuff. wonder if ball type/brand or new vs used ball plays a factor in measured vs calc spin? play exclusively sim software rather than FS app, so i can't tell for sure when spin is estimated. that said, agree that the most common weird spin numbers are low spin iron (3000ish even for wedges) and high spin driver (4000-5000 ish).

[SkeetShooter]

Great test data here. Thanks for doing this. Which unit estimated or missed data more? Were the balls all using the metallic dot?

[Gresh12]

Dot on the ball for all shots.

I didn’t keep exact count but from memory:

Driver: 3 TM estimated spin 1 M+ (all decent shots)
7 iron: 0 TM 1 M+
Wedge: 1 TM 4 M+ (All decent shots)

The wedge would be bad in sim rounds as 8-10k dropping to 4k was clearly a huge issue but in practice it would be easy to tell from launch/speed if it was decent.

Part of my observation on estimated spin is based on my thousands of shots on both machines and knowing my own numbers well. With TM I often don’t bother with dot unless I’m club testing or really working on something because it’s estimates are fine but with M+ I’d never use it indoors (or in to net) without a dot.

[jerry3]

Was trackman 4 used?

[Gresh12]

Yes Trackman 4.

When the weather gets better we’ll do an outdoor test as well but it will be with range balls so I do worry that test will come down to randomness.

[Darren W]

Thanks for this. I look at the price I paid for the Mevo and it allowed me to get through a COVID locked-down Canadian winter while playing golf. If the numbers are close, I am happy.

[jerry3]

definitely surprised by these results, the only one that was off by a good bit was the driver spin axis

[Gresh12]

I did a similar test 6-9 months ago and a few firmware updates occurred since.

From memory, everything was pretty close except some total spin figures on some shots (I don’t think M+ italicized spin at that point so I wouldn’t have know which were estimates or if they did I didn’t think of it) and the spin axis was poor throughout wedge and 7 iron in addition to driver. I think they’ve made some improvement on the axis but I bet for both devices it’s tough on driver with decent ball speed and not a lot of rpms.

[andygg1986]

I'm curious about the offline distances. For example, shot 4 with a 7 iron has all of the ball parameters very close between the two systems, yet there is 14 yards difference in the offline distance. Then shots 2 and 4 with the driver have similar ball parameters except for spin axis which varies 15 and 20 degrees, but those end up with being offline within 1 yard of each other. Maybe I'm missing something?

[Gresh12]

I noticed those when I entered the data also.

On the 7 iron shot it feels like the TM was very punitive on that hook. The left spin axis of 12.8* produced a 24 yard curve according to TM and the shot a couple above that had a 10.1* left spin axis was 14 yards of curve. Way different ball speed and hang time which maybe explains it but that one visually on the TM was a huge hook for a 7 iron whereas putting both in the web based FS Optimizer it doesn't look near as extreme. I also don't know how the algorithms work but TM had it starting left slightly and M+ starting right slightly, is it possible the devices are looking at that and inferring (TM is tracking club and M+ is to some extent they just haven't told us how much) pull hook versus "slight push" draw and shaping based on that a bit. Without knowing how the software works they could in theory be using club data to supplement ball data but I'm speculating totally.

On the driver I was wondering if there is some extreme spin tilt correction going on where it is tempering some of the really big spin axis because they know it doesn't read spin axis great. Total speculation on my part but the shots did look similar on the visual screen even though you are correct that the axis was way more exaggerated on the M+.