Skytrak vs. Flightscope Xi

[fhann]

For that 112.9 mph ball speed, 21.5 launch angle and with a back spin of 6800 rpm with no side spin, then the maximum carry distance for 5000 feet elevation above sea level, (without wind conditions), will be 191 yards.

Get your lofts checked and you might be able to answer your question why there was only 8 yards carry distance between your 7 and 9 iron.

[ajohns38]

Great point, one of the key requirements for indoor set up is to ensure that the radar is at the same height as the tee. I'm using some tiles to make sure I get the correct height.

That's interesting guys. I am standing on a mat, say 1-2 inches off the ground and the unit was not on a mat. And you are absolutely correct. The sales rep did in fact do me a disservice. I am sure if we would have used metallic stickers, set the elevation properly, and leveled, I would have received better numbers.

fhann- As far as my clubs are concerned, they are all standard lofts. 35 degrees for a 7 iron. I remember last year they had a nike rep at the local golf shop and she wanted me to hit their 7 iron vs. mine and I hit theirs way farther. It makes you think their clubs are way better, but actually it was just the loft of a 6 iron. It is a good trick they try and play.

I am sorry the picture is so small. On average for 7 iron (5 shots) 166.5 carry, 10.3 roll, 176.8 total distance, 3.8 lateral, 112.9 ball, 88.3 club, 1.28 smash, 2214 spin, v launch 21.5, h launch 1.3 L, v descent 38.6, AOA 2.4, spin loft 25.1. But like I said, I will give you an average tomorrow with the same club on GC2 at golfsmith. The numbers are skewed due to the machine, not my golf ability.

[Dax]

A of A numbers are influenced by properly setting up the launch monitor. The Xi series have self levelling feet which helps assist with set up. My X2 launch monitor also has the self levelling feature. But, the elevation difference between the bottom of the launch monitor and the elevation of the surface of the teeing area, (not the height of the ball if using a tee), must be determined and input into the setup parameters of the software. I think that this may also be the case when using an Xi series unit. If this was not done, then A of A will be incorrectly detected. There seems to be a high possibility that this part of the setup was not done. Your sales rep might have done you a disservice when demoing the Xi unit, since we know that metallic stickers were not used, and probably not inputting other data required. The outputs are questionable, and a purchaser loses faith in the equipment when so many outputs seem to conflict with one another.

Flightscope provides great launch monitors if they are used/operated properly. If not, then it is a case of GIGO, (garbage in, garbage out).

Great point, one of the key requirements for indoor set up is to ensure that the radar is at the same height as the tee. I'm using some tiles to make sure I get the correct height.

[fhann]

A of A numbers are influenced by properly setting up the launch monitor. The Xi series have self levelling feet which helps assist with set up. My X2 launch monitor also has the self levelling feature. But, the elevation difference between the bottom of the launch monitor and the elevation of the surface of the teeing area, (not the height of the ball if using a tee), must be determined and input into the setup parameters of the software. I think that this may also be the case when using an Xi series unit. If this was not done, then A of A will be incorrectly detected. There seems to be a high possibility that this part of the setup was not done. Your sales rep might have done you a disservice when demoing the Xi unit, since we know that metallic stickers were not used, and probably not inputting other data required. The outputs are questionable, and a purchaser loses faith in the equipment when so many outputs seem to conflict with one another.

Flightscope provides great launch monitors if they are used/operated properly. If not, then it is a case of GIGO, (garbage in, garbage out).

[fhann]

I will go to the local golfsmith this weekend and hit my 7 iron and show you what more realistic numbers I generally get. the club head speed average was 88 as well, not 84. Also, don't you think it is strange that my 7 iron only went 8 yard longer on average than my 9 iron? Trust me, there is no over estimation.

When you are at Golfsmith, try to get your lofts checked on an accurate loft and lie gauge, (not on a loft and lie bending machine). Often, there might not be much difference between clubs and your gap difference between length of carry can be compromised. Also check to make sure that the software on the launch monitor has not been boosted to show longer yardages than actual. Boosting yardages plays on our ego and can entice golfers to purchase equipment.

The ball speed that I used is the important number when input into the golf trajectory modelling software. I hope that I read that average number correctly. It is very difficult to read your numbers from the picture that was provided. If I am close to the average that was encountered for ball speed, then the modelling software's output is quite reliable.

[Maverick]

I agree about the AoA. Doesn't look right for a 2 handicap. And since metal stickers weren't used, his calculated carry numbers are invalid. Ball speed and club speed were probably good, but spin is invalid.

My answer to the question in the first post is neither. I would wait a couple of months....

[Dax]

I thought his smash factor was somewhere around 1.3 (hard to see on my iPad), which I thought would not be bad. Tour avg for a seven iron was 1.33 I thought.

[Brutaly]

The other reason is to do soft chips and putts without additional equipment add on or using auto putt.

True, but is that worth like 4000 dollars extra!? I just cant see it.

Except your nice looking list is via some undocumented/unsupported work around, correct? If so, when that disappears the Xi suddenly looks overpriced!

Undocumented, no.
Unsupported, yes.
It only disappears if you as the owner decides if it should disapear.

I still dont find it overpriced, work around or not. It still measures all those parameters and they are used in the calculations.

Skytrak is $500 less (~2,000) than FS Xi. (2,500). Are you saying it should not be this much considering what it does?

In my opinion yes and regardless of work arounds or not.

If i where you i would wait and see what E6 Cloud brings to Xi and also if it pops up some other option. There is a thread about new/unknown devices. A couple of forum members seem to be involved in beta testing a new device for sim/training which is supposed to be very affordable.

What strikes me with your i7 data is that for a 2 hcp player the data is:
Low smash
Erratic spinnumbers
Spinnumbers that are more or less impossible with an i7 without a really weird swing.
Erratic AoA. AoA should be negative with at least -2 with a i7. The low smash and positive AoA indicates reversed pivot or really faulty swing and you would be the first one i ever seen that managed to become a 2 hcp with those numbers.

Did you check so it was setup properly? It looks overall really weird.

[Dax]

Actually I believe fluorescent lighting can also cause issues as well.

[Dax]

What cold be some concerns with interference? There were no objects infront of the monitor. Are you referring to lighting? Let mw know what i should look for an try to avoid.

Some things that could interfere with a radar would include a lot of metal that would make the room very reflective could cause problems (say a metal garage door with the unit facing the door), another would be a fan or a heater. I had an issue with the fan in my projector and fixed it very easily by moving it up another foot.

Hope this helps

[ajohns38]

I still find skytrak to be expensive compared to Xi considering what you really get. Im eager to see what E6 clouds bring and hope it will exploit the potential of Xi and Xi+ fully.

Skytrak is $500 less (~2,000) than FS Xi. (2,500). Are you saying it should not be this much considering what it does?

[ajohns38]

(4) maybe there is an issue with the environment you were hitting in as some things will interfere with the radar ( I am happy to discuss these if someone has questions).

What cold be some concerns with interference? There were no objects infront of the monitor. Are you referring to lighting? Let mw know what i should look for an try to avoid.

[ajohns38]

Given all of the above, it would still seem that the original poster may overestimate his carry distance which is considerably different than total distance. Total distance can be dramatically longer than carry distance depending upon turf conditions.

I will go to the local golfsmith this weekend and hit my 7 iron and show you what more realistic numbers I generally get. the club head speed average was 88 as well, not 84. Also, don't you think it is strange that my 7 iron only went 8 yard longer on average than my 9 iron? Trust me, there is no over estimation.

[FaultyClubs]

I still find skytrak to be expensive compared to Xi considering what you really get

Except your nice looking list is via some undocumented/unsupported work around, correct? If so, when that disappears the Xi suddenly looks overpriced!

[fhann]

There is approximately 8 more yards carry distance for a ball speed of 115 mph and launch angle of 21 degrees with ball spin of 6800 rpm's according to Flightscope Trajectory Optimizer software. Carry distance of 160 yards at sea level versus 168 yards at 5000 feet above sea level, 70 deg. F.

There is definitely a spin detection problem without the metallic sticker being used by the original poster. Spin numbers were shown around 3200 rpm average which is definitely low. Ball speed and smash factors for 7 iron and 84 mph clubhead speed seem to in the range that I would expect for good hits. Launch angle appears good also for maximum distance. I therefore plugged in 6800 rpm as ball spin without any sidespin when inputting into ball trajectory software, since this is around the numbers that I have encountered for very good strikes using a 7 iron.

Given all of the above, it would still seem that the original poster may overestimate his carry distance which is considerably different than total distance. Total distance can be dramatically longer than carry distance depending upon turf conditions.