Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ES-16 Most Precised club and ball data available.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ES-16 Most Precised club and ball data available.

    I know that is what the add says but I never could seem to get that out of my ES-16. It may just be me but from what I see it doesn't seem to be the most Precised data to me!

  • #16
    Ok, so here is one single shot done on both the GcQuad and the ES16 at the same time. I don't have the patience to hit a ton on this setup right now as I'm trying to hone in my game for a round later this week, but thought I'd do this one to compare. I hit a few shots as soon as I got this last week and the results were the same.

    Swing speed is close enough. Smash factor and carry are way off. Now, perhaps the ES16 is calculating what my ball would do in Arizona, while the GcQ is exactly what it would do in the conditions of my basement, but that's a huge discrepancy.

    A lot of other things are close, but really carry should not be 10% more on the ES16.

    I am 100% sure the GcQ is accurate. I took it to the range yesterday and it was spot on.

    ——
    Edit: I forgot to add the shot of both LMs set up so you can see how I did this and with a green light on both. I also used the ES ball of choice: Srixon.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by Baller; 01-30-2018, 05:31 AM.

    Comment


    • Baller
      Baller commented
      Editing a comment
      Hey, a GC2 was just posted for sale for $4k.

    • BGCurtis2nd
      BGCurtis2nd commented
      Editing a comment
      Well right now $4K is out of my price range, having to take care of my mother-in-law, and having to redo most of the floors and all the electrical in my mothers house has kind of put me behind the cure on cash flow. I saw they had Bluetooth blocked on the GCQ but thought it was built into the unit and just had to be turned on and would be at a latter date, doesn't matter at this point wife said I had to win the lottery to buy one and I haven't been getting any lottery tickets. When I get things settled I will be looking at a GC2 for sure, may even take some spare cash and buy a lottery ticket or two just in case.

    • RangeRunner
      RangeRunner commented
      Editing a comment
      Thanks for the data!!! This is really important. The ES16 is not reading ball speed correctly!!! (or at all, for that matter).

  • #17
    Baller:
    GCQ, very nice. Huge hitting area!

    I also get shots that go farther than they should with the ES 16, but not all that often. Actually I got one on the second 48.5 wedge video I published. I think it was shot 3 or 4 on the video. That wedge shot carried 123 yards. The most I can get that club to carry on a real course is about 117 to 118 yards, so 123 yards is about 10 yards to long on average.


    I did have a chance to hit my steel shafted 7 iron on a GC2 today and then hit the same club on my ES 16. I've attached a photo the GC2 strike results and typical examples of the strike results with the ES 16. I would say results compare reasonably well.

    I was thinking about smash factor and what you had to say. I can't have a better smash factor than a PGA Pro, but my flightscope numbers suggest my 7 iron smash factor is about 1.36. I know PGA tour average is 1.33. So what is going on here? I think it has to do with loft. I noticed LPGA 7 iron average smash factor is 1.38. Hmmm, LPGA Pros better than the PGA Pros? I don't think so. I don't know for sure what is going on here, but my guess is it has to do with loft and I would say a LPGA 7 iron, and mine, has a similar loft as a PGA 6 iron which has an average smash factor of 1.38.

    Anyway, the ES 16 struggles more with smash factor and club head speed as loft increases. My 7 iron averages in the high 1.38 or 1.39 area on the ES 16. That is high of course, but not that much more than the 1.36 it measures on, I think it was a Flightscope and not Trackman. The sand wedge is way off on smash factor, although I am much more concerned with horizontal launch angle and the systems ability to handle diverse shot shapes and fat shots.

    wbond:
    I include a photo of the results of a 7 iron shot when a 3 iron is selected in the software. I had not tried this before, but the results are interesting for sure.
    Last edited by Stonebattle; 01-31-2018, 02:10 AM.

    Comment


    • #18
      Yes, the hitting are is so big it’s ridiculous and it is a dream no worrying about how I put the ball down and I don’t have to move it for my driver or anything.

      That is a very good point about the smash factor. I hadn’t thought of that, but I did notice that the LPGA smash factors were higher, but didn’t understand why. I think your theory must be right that it is because they are stronger lofts.

      So, perhaps, your smash factor isn’t way off

      I did post mine, though. My 7i is a Titleist CB. I don’t think more than 1.35 is possible from this club. The GcQ says 1.32 which I believe and the ES16 says 1.37.

      I do think a lot of things seem very accurate on the ES16 after comparing. But, I do think they need to fix their algorithm and the ball should do what the ball will do no matter what club hits that ball because it does not matter in real life. The ball flight need to be more accurate. That/is a huge discrepancy for me and it did affect a good number of rounds where I hit shots I that were right at the flag but were way short.


      Comment


      • #19
        I no longer have an ES-16 so I don't know what improvements have been made on the FW since I sent mine back to Ernest Sports, but where I had a problem with the readings was when I would have two ball show different launch angles, different ball speeds, and different launch directions and both land in about the same place. I pride myself on having a very fine eye for detail and in the line of work I have done in the past peoples lives depended on me doing things right. I pay close attention to what is going on and look at all the information I can and the one thing I looked at on the ES-16 was the way the smash factor would change, as the club head speed would go up the ball speed would come down giving it a ball flight that would match the distance for a given club. I would love to see a series of shots done with the ES-16 and GCQ set up Like Baller had it to see what the over all reading would match out to be.

        Comment


        • #20
          Baller:
          No doubt they need to fix their algorithms. wbond's call on hitting a 7 iron with 3 iron selected was a good one. The ball speed is almost 5% higher then when a 7 iron is selected. I'm not sure why they are doing that, but it sure does suggest their ball flight algorithms need improvement.

          BG:
          Your situation with Ernest Sport suggest someone there has their heads where the sun does not shine. My goodness, the bad press alone has cost them at least 100 times what an ES 16 costs.
          I also would like to see a series of shots with the GCQ and the ES 16. I think that would be very informative. I might suggest following best practices as close a possible for that test.

          Comment


          • wbond
            wbond commented
            Editing a comment
            Did you happen to hit any 7 irons with a PW selected? Wonder if you'd get a similar result?

        • #21
          Stonebattle I really do not understand what is going on myself, sad thing is my Father-in-law passed away back in November and we had to move my Mother-in-law into our home because she has Alzheimer's disease and is unable to take care of herself. Bad part about that is I have only managed one round of golf since and that was back in November while the wife had her mother at an appointment in St. Louis. I go out to the shop when I get a chance and hit balls into the impact screen with just a picture of a fairway or green being projected on it, but it sure would be nice to see some data on those shots or be able to play a round on TGC. I can't get to far from home because my Mother-in-law is frail and the wife needs help with her at times, I should also say my Mother-in-law is a wonderful woman and I am glad to be able to take care of her, but I do miss playing golf or hitting some ball on the simulator.
          I do think it would be very informative to see how well the ES-16 compares over a series of shots. It sure seem that the algorithm along with the club selection is the biggest determining factor in the shot readings on the ES-16, and if you don't fit into the norm you don't get a good reading. I was told when I got my ES-16 that the club selection was only needed to keep track of club statistics and nothing more.

          Comment


          • #22
            Hey wbond:
            Yes I did, so please see attached

            Comment


            • wbond
              wbond commented
              Editing a comment
              Did it reduce your overall carry? I tried to zoom but it's hard to read. Just curious if it affects it both ways, higher ball speed when selecting a club longer than your hitting and slower when you select a more lofted club.

          • #23
            Yes it effected carry distance. Carry distance was reduced from a bit over 160 yards to about 140 yards.

            Comment


            • Jwheels9876
              Jwheels9876 commented
              Editing a comment
              Wow, that is ridicioulous. That's something I'd expect from an optishot for $350. You should throw that thing on eBay and pray someone buys it for a good price.

          • #24
            It appears that the program gets some idea of the ball speed, launch angle, and spin rate. It then estimates what would be something reasonable depending on the club used. I could do that without a launch monitor!

            Comment


            • BGCurtis2nd
              BGCurtis2nd commented
              Editing a comment
              You could probably do it better, I had a set of Mizuno JPX 850 Forged irons I was trying to sell. I had a guy who plays at the course I do, but I do not know him very well. So when he asked to play my clubs for a round or two I told him he could come over to the house and try them out on my ES-16 launch monitor. Now out on the course I let him hit a few with my 7 iron and he remarked he was getting about twenty more yards out of it than what he did with his 7 iron. He was using a set that had belonged to his dad and from what was said they were about fifteen to twenty years old and made by Golf Smith if I recall correctly. Thing of it is when he came over to the house and tried them he was getting pretty much the same on the ES-16 with his clubs as he was with mine, so needless to say I didn't sell my clubs. I had told Ernest Sports from what I could see when the club speed went up the ball speed would come down, so even though he was getting a lot better swing speed out of the Mizuno clubs he was getting pretty much the same distance.

          • #25
            John:
            I am not saying it's all bad. The latest FW is how they have chosen to improve the unit and actually my numbers for most clubs are consistent with my Flightscope numbers. I say most clubs, because I don't have good Flightscope numbers for all my clubs.
            I was not happy at all with the ES 16 until FW 155/156 came out. Now it does not seem bad at all and I can live with it.

            Having said that, Ernest Sports still has a ways to go the make this thing perform as well as they have said/written it should perform. I still want them to succeed, because this thing could be great given the price point. Although, it will never be a GCQ, but I don't think it has to be.

            Comment


            • BGCurtis2nd
              BGCurtis2nd commented
              Editing a comment
              I am not trying to see them fail, but I do believe that they should be held accountable for what they sell. From what has been said I believe that they have stopped trying to make the ES-16 what was claimed it was and are just going to adjust the FW to give what appears to be the proper ball flight. When I bought my unit I was told it would preform as well or better than a GC2 with HMT attached, which is the same as a GCQ. Now on the new video Par2Pro put up on the ES 20/20 Jim says the ES-16 will be just an indoor unit. So I guess if you were sold a ES-16 compared to a SkyTrak you very well may be happy with it, but if you were told it would compare to a GC2 I don't see it ever getting that good. All I want is for the company to treat not only me but all of it's customers fairly. It was said it was the most accurate launch monitor on the market, that it used 4 Doppler radars and 2 cameras to measure all the data to give you the most accurate information. Yet as you see even with your unit it uses the club selection to calculate ball flight with which ever data it does get.

          • #26
            The ES16 is not on par with the Skytrak. The Skytrak is much more reliable and accurate. You get the same numbers no matter what club you hit or what club you select. With the Skytrak you do not even need to select a club. The Skytrak is also 3000 cheaper. Any launch monitor that gives you different numbers based on what club is selected is doing some sort of guessing, not measuring. Common sense.

            Comment


            • #27
              John:
              I had a Skytrak for about three weeks a bit over a year ago. Looking at my numbers with Skytrak and the ES 16, it seems to me they produce similar results. In both cases the wedges are a bit long. The irons are a bit short with the ES 16. Hybrids and metals are similar between the two. Driver distances are longer with the ES 16, but seem closer to my real numbers than Skytrak's. Still, there is not much difference. I can't say there's much difference between the two on horizontal launch angle. I measured the Skytrak off by about 4 degrees at times. My ES 16 does have about a 2 to 3 degree right launch angle bias, but even the GC2 appears to have biases of its own. I suppose Skytrak may be better now than when I had it.

              The main issue I have with the ES 16 is the inability to handle certain shots, such as fat shots, well.

              I am not sure why they have chosen to implement the club ball speed/distance algorithms they way they have and would have to say it seems strange.

              Comment


              • #28
                I disagree 100%. The skytrak gives me the same numbers no matter what club i hit or select. It is actually measuring ball speed, spin and launch angle. You can argue that it may not have as refined measurements as the gc2 given some lesser technology but it is measuring consistently none the less. The ES16 does not do this. If I hit PW with PW selected i get ball speeds around 90 mph and spin rate to 9500. That seems pretty reasonable. When I change to the selected club to 7 iron and still hit the PW the ball speeds will go up to 108 range and spins will drop to 5000. If i select a 3 wood and hit the PW the ball speeds go over 120mph and the spin rates drop to 3000. The distance will be over 200 yrds with a PW! Now, how can the ES16 be accurately measuring the parameters it says it does if this is the case. My guess is that it gets some kind of measurement of the data and then depending on which club is picked, it guess the actual parameters it spits out. Try this stonebattle- try several different clubs with different clubs selected and see what goofiness you get. I'm not sure how you can have any confidence in this. If you told me what club you hit and i get a ball speed measurement within 5-10mph, I could make up the remainder of the parameters in somewhat of a close replica of what the real numbers would be. I don't think that is good enough.

                Comment


                • #29
                  It appears they are modifying the ball speed depending on the club selected. I suppose this may suggests their system has issues accurately measuring ball speed with various launch angles or perhaps the way they are measuring ball speed requires a calculation of some sort.

                  If they are guessing based on certain parameters as I think you are suggesting, then their guesses are reasonable for full shots with clubs within a given loft. I don't think those types of guesses would work in the case of partial wedges, punch or flop shots. I have not done any objective testing with those types of shots, but my gut feel and course play suggests those are reasonable as well. Although, I'm not sure how they could be reasonable given what I know now, but there it is.

                  I need to give this some more thought.

                  Comment


                  • #30
                    You are ok with reasonable guesses rather than measured data?

                    Comment


                    • Stonebattle
                      Stonebattle commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Say what?
                      I have provided objective data, photos and videos for folks to make up their own minds. I appreciate your opinion, but it is not well founded or thought out.

                    • John2660
                      John2660 commented
                      Editing a comment
                      I think everything that has been shown about the ES16 makes you look bad stonebattle. To say that my "opinion" is not well thought out is ludicrous. For some reason you are doing the bidding for a company with a product that does not do what it was sold to as to do. Do you work for them? All the objective data provided shows a machine that does not accurately measure data and makes things up. Exactly what I have said.

                    • Stonebattle
                      Stonebattle commented
                      Editing a comment
                      I do not work for ES, I am a user of the product. Let me guess, you work for Skytrak?
                  Working...
                  X