GC Quad distances

[delaloi]

Took the GCQ to the range today for the first time. It seems to catch spin well; curvature reads are consistent, and it's good to see how much movement 100, 500, 1000 rpm of side spin means. Alignment works if you use the rod, but just sitting it down and eyeballing is not good enough. This is one of the reasons I went for the Quad over GC2 and glad I did, because even the Quad system is not perfect. I would think alignment would be a drawback with GC2, particularly indoors. I don't see how you can play sim golf unless you are sure the aim function is exactly right.

Anyway, reason for the post is I did some distance checks. Wedge distance so I could be sure where the ball is landing. At 75 yard range, GC Quad was consistently showing carry distances of 5-7 yards farther than actual ball flight. First I was thinking maybe that's because of using not-great range balls, but that should be captured in the ball data. I was hitting off a mat, not sure what effect that would have if any. I don't think wind was against. Temperature was cold, just a few degrees above freezing. Not far above sea level.

Any ideas?

[Bubba22]

The alignment method of the Quad is excellent. Despite not having this with the GC2, I do think one can align it pretty close to allow for very accurate measurements indoor for sim golf. Your numbers are obviously very close but probably off from various reasons like wind, temperature etc and eventually the algo's which is calculating distances based on numbers not full ball flight measurement. It just tells you that no system is perfect however yours is pretty darn close.

[delaloi]

By any stretch this is an impressive tool. I would have guessed GCQ maybe should have had more of an advantage over GC2 in terms of ball measurement but that possibly speaks just to the high level of the 2-camera technology. My experience with GC2 in fitting sessions etc. was always that it registered farther than I actually hit the ball.

In any case if GCQ is going to be 10% off in carry distance (as mine seemed to be today) then that's significant in terms of how it is going to help me on the golf course. I don't play the game for money but at my level if the ball flies 75 yards or 80 yards that's an important difference. I suppose I can simply scale the thing back 10% somehow if it seems consistent in that regard, but I was hoping for something a little tighter.

[Bubba22]

Is the GCQ any more 'accurate" than the GC2? My guesse is "not really". I say that in quotations for a reason. Thoughts?

[delaloi]

It would take a rigorous side-by-side test to see. One might have thought that state of the art technology should beat 6 years old in this sort of thing. But I have not seen anyone show that GCQ is significantly more accurate than GC2 in measuring ball flight. Could be that GC2 is about as accurate as a camera system can get.

[Stingreye]

Specs sheets show it has tighter tolerances on nearly everything it measure. Spin is more accurate, LA, launch direction etc

[Bubba22]

I just think we are splitting hairs on the tolerance etc. It's like debating a Trackman-Doppler vs GC2 camera. Yes the Quad may be more "accurate" in its tolerances but not sure we would notice it. For sure the Quad is amazing but so is the GC2. At the end of the day they both measure data based on initial ball flight and then use math to determine distances through ball flight algo. I will tell you that no company has a perfect flight algo. GC2 and the Quad measure ball great and have excellent algo so it's as good as it gets.

[Stingreye]

Agreed, but for putting purposes I think he starting line is 50% better. So 1* vs .5* is there. I don’t think the quad is worth the money over the gc2+ hmt. But if you look at the improvements in specs. It’s better. Algorithmwise, the gc2 on low spin drives is laughable.

[Bubba22]

Yes low spin drive algo is not great. Is the Quad that much better with putting?

[Stingreye]

I can’t find the specs anymore but the big one for putting is the ha accuracy. It’s only +/- 1*. That’s probably at the 90% confidence interval so who know how bad it can be.

They have a new putting module which I would hope means their putting is more accurate but who knows. I don’t think putting in fsx is very good imho. Then again I probably haven’t played enough rounds in fsx to really say.

[p3eps]

I spend a lot of time at work calibrating instruments for use in industry (mainly oil and gas).
All instruments come with manufacturers tolerances, and we need to ensure they are calibrated within these specs.
More than often, the actual numbers are WAY better than the quoted spec. The spec the manufacturer states is the WORST CASE allowed.
For example, a digital pressure indicator might be allowed to be 0.008 digits out to be within spec, but is actually only 0.001 digits out.

Very few instruments are as ‘bad’ as their stated accuracy!

[LEO MODE]

By any stretch this is an impressive tool. I would have guessed GCQ maybe should have had more of an advantage over GC2 in terms of ball measurement but that possibly speaks just to the high level of the 2-camera technology. My experience with GC2 in fitting sessions etc. was always that it registered farther than I actually hit the ball.

In any case if GCQ is going to be 10% off in carry distance (as mine seemed to be today) then that's significant in terms of how it is going to help me on the golf course. I don't play the game for money but at my level if the ball flies 75 yards or 80 yards that's an important difference. I suppose I can simply scale the thing back 10% somehow if it seems consistent in that regard, but I was hoping for something a little tighter.

I tested side by side with a Trackman outdoor but other than GC2 giving me funky numbers at times, carry on GC2 was actually slightly lower on irons and slightly higher on a driver. On average though it was about 3-5yds difference which in my opinion is negligible.

Since GC Quad has a barometer and thermometer it could play a slight role since GC2 is a pure virgin setup. I am surprised you didn’t notice any flight difference. I hope GC Quad Spin Axis measurement got better on GC Quad?

[Snaphook]

My guess is the range balls. Can you test again using real balls?
How is the quad on low spin drives? (Sub 2000 rpm)

[onehandicap]

Per Titleist, you will lost about 3 percent carry when the temp near freezing vs 70 degrees based on air density alone, so that is at least part of the answer. I suspect range balls is another component.

[Dax]

Per Titleist, you will lost about 3 percent carry when the temp near freezing vs 70 degrees based on air density alone, so that is at least part of the answer. I suspect range balls is another component.

But I thought the Quad had a built in feature to account for temperature/air pressure differences?

i think Leo has done the most extensive testing on the device and based on that testing the GC2 was pretty darn good apart from being a bit draw biased. 5 yards on 75 yards is not all that big of a deal as anything could have happened to cause that result (or a bunch of small things that added up). I will say that if it was 7 yards consistently, then I would start being concerned. I would try the test again using your playing ball and see if you notice any differences. I’m not sure what her result would be as someone on YouTube did a test that showed the unit measured range balls pretty consistently

one thing i must say though is that that I have read over the years nothing but praise on these units and people saying that they are spot on everytime. All I can say is that I am happy that we are starting to see that these units are not as perfect as people think. At least now people can get aome good info if they research and then make a call in what they feel is right for them. I also find it interesting to learn that alignment is not that easy with these units and while I think you can accurately dial it in, I was surprised to learn of this.

In in the end, Bubba has it right and as he has said for years now, none of these units is perfect and I just think people need to realize this when they buy something.