protee putting

[SFR]

................................

[SFR]

..............................................

[Cklguy2013]

SFR, where are these numbers coming from? I.e how are they being calculated? Are these average velocities or initial velocities? If average our numbers would be very close.

So you are saying a ball speed of 2.29 results in a putt of 3 feet, but with a ball speed of 12.52, 5.46 times more, the ball rolls 30 times further. Does that make sense?

[FaultyClubs]

Yes, it makes sense.

To a first order of approximation, the relationship is KE = 1/2 W/g V^2

Where:
KE = Total Kinetic Energy of ball
W = Weight of ball
g = gravitational force
V = initial ball speed

Given that, I would expect 5.46 time more ball speed would go 29.8 times further and indeed it does.

There are further equations necessary to convert the kinetic energy into distance but this should be sufficient.

[Cklguy2013]

Hey Faulty, if I understand this correctly the only variable we are working with is velocity squared? So 2.29 squared is 5.2, and 12.52 squared is 156.7, so 30.13 times more. However I think friction is being grossly underestimated here. A driver hit with 150 miles of ball speed vs one hit with 50 miles of ball speed doesn't fly 9 times more, i.e 286.2 vs 31.8, it flies 255 yards or 8 times more and this is through the air not along the ground. So although I agree with the formula of course, there is a bit more to its application in this situation. However, all that being said if SFR is talking average and I'm talking initial we are very close on our numbers. I'm of course using initial because that, I believe, is provided by all systems.

[SFR]

Couldn't one use a GC2 on a real putting green and measure the distance?

You need a laptop and software to show the actual ball speed to the decimal otherwise it rounds to the nearest so a 3.5 to a 4.4 mph putt will read as 4. Not accurate on its own when you need that exact number. Not sure if the apple app shows the ball speed to the decimal.

[Bnorman58]

Wow, you guys have done some homework, I commend you. All we all want is an enjoyable experience. What seems strange to me is ProTee software is so consistent I can get a feel for it and actually get in the vicinity of 30-36 putts per round which is where I am at IRL. This makes the game enjoyable. This is also without the ProTee putting sensor. In TGC, I am in the range of 50. This is a buzz kill. I am interested in the response to the question is it a designer setting or can it be adjusted. In the TGC software I dont see how it would be since I see no settings for it. In ProTee software, it is in the hardware(interface) settings. Thus I conclude this setting has no effect on TGC, which is what I see and understandable given all the compatible hardware. Either this could/should be a setting in TGC or it should be more realistic because all I know is it is not. I think the consistency with ProTee is there with both short and long putts so it must be doable. I know I didnt answer ProTee's question and I didnt add any engineering value to this conversation but that's my 2 cents.

[SFR]

.................................................. .....

[FaultyClubs]

Using the real stimp meter introduces a lot of variables in your test IMHO. It has to roll over the sensors and who knows what speed the sensors will record. Especially since you started 15 inches in front of the sensors. Also you can't just take the game distance and add the real world extra (it's apples and oranges), neither can you ignore it since the difference between stimp 9 or 10 is material.

Anyway, for a valid stimp reading the speed needs to be 4.1mph input into TGC. What was the actual value TGC used? Also data from multiple runs is good practice...the statistics are useful in detecting (in)valid experimental data. It may also tell us something useful about TGC behaviour.

As for TGC algorithm being poor, I don't see how you can make that claim yet. We still haven't got a clear set of data for #1 let alone #2.

[keither5150]

Hmmm I guess I am lucky to putt on a GSA system. I have an 11 foot flat putting area in front of my fairway mat. I have the system calibrated on a flat green, so that when I putt 4 feet, it goes 4 feet..... 9 feet it goes 9 feet and so on. I could make it more accurate if TGC had distance to .1 of a foot. No putting sensors, just vcam and hcam working together..... I also taped a line on the mat 11 feet out to show what straight is.

[Cklguy2013]

Hey Faulty, how has your experience been putting on the TGC? What system are you using?

First off this is not and never will be exact, we are trying to come up with some reasonable representation of real world scenarios. Currently they are not, low speed putts do not roll far enough (read my earlier post), and high speed putts roll too far, this isn't only my experience but that of many who are currently using the system.

Second you are too fixated on the stimp reading (although the 9 vs 10 issue is valid), the bigger issue, if you go back to my original post is the incremental distance on an extra mph of ball speed; per my original post, 2.88 additional mph's of ball speed resulted in 28 feet of additional distance, or 3.24 yards per mph, this is not possible, a drive flying through the air (not rolling along the ground) only gains at most about 2.9 yards per extra mph of ball speed. This is the bigger issue.

[FaultyClubs]

Currently they are not, low speed putts do not roll far enough (read my earlier post), and high speed putts roll too far, this isn't only my experience but that of many who are currently using the system.

I understand you believe that based on anecdotal evidence. However your tests are materially flawed so I was trying to help you construct a valid test so you could properly investigate your hypothesis.

Second you are too fixated on the stimp reading, the bigger issue, if you go back to my original post is the incremental distance on an extra mph of ball speed; per my original post, 2.88 additional mph's of ball speed resulted in 28 feet of additional distance, or 3.24 yards per mph, this is not possible, a drive flying through the air (not rolling along the ground) only gains at most about 2.9 yards per extra mph of ball speed. This is the bigger issue.

Your understanding of the physics is incorrect. I explained this in an earlier post. Also you are assuming the dominate ball flight physics are the same as putting but they are not.

I've nothing further to add so will leave it at that.

[Cklguy2013]

The low speed putts are based on a number of putts on my mat using a tape measure to measure the actual putt versus the distance reading on the system. How would I improve upon this materially flawed test?

Based on the current coefficient of restitution of current driver limits, a ball can only fly so far from incremental increases off of a driver face. Do balls actually fly further off the face of a putter? Could you point me in the direction of this research. Driver wise you might want to check out Flight scope's trajectory launch optimizer.

Also based on my knowledge of physics, you might want to read my response to your post in that regards.

Which system did you say you were using again and how long putting on the TGC?

But as you say we shall leave it here.

[Cklguy2013]

Ok boys here you go, knock yourselves out,

Test with stimpmeter, from directly in front of sensor, ball adjusment factor of 1.0 (as close as I could get)

mph, distance
1. 4.29 7 feet
2. 4.29, 7
3. 4.34, 7
4. 4.34, 7
5. 4.25, 7
6. 4.29, 7
7. 4.18, 7
8. 4.27, 7
9. 4.16, 7
10. 4.34, 7

With putter, from same starting location.
1.77, 1"2" (3'4" actual)
2.73, 2'9" (5'4" actual)
2.91, 3'2" (5'6" actual)
3.36, 4 (6'2" actual)
3.62, 5 (6'6" actual)
3.87, 6
3.96, 6
4.14, 6
4.23, 7
4.56, 8
4.79, 9
4.94, 9
5.35, 11
5.7, 12
6.02, 14
6.24, 15
7.16, 19
7.25, 20
7.94, 25
8.66, 28
9.53, 34
9.84, 36
11.03, 45
11.63, 50
11.77, 51
12.8, 61
12.84, 61
14.85, 82
14.94, 83
15.82, 93
16.2, 97
17.09, 108
17.56, 114
17.8, 117
18.03, 120
18.9, 132
19.24, 137
20.42, 151
20.42, 151

Anything harder than 20.42 didn't stay on the green, btw my hardest putt clocked at around 30 mph, this would be that 100 to 120 foot putt in real golf.

[Cklguy2013]

So I have a couple observation from my data above,

1. The putting sensor is very accurate and very close to the correct speed. If I moved the stimp meter back a few inches from the sensor no doubt I could get the speed to 4.1 mph.
2. The green appears to stimp at around 6'6" using 4.1 mph of ball speed.
3. If you hit if harder it does consistently go farther, which is good.
4. Low speed putts, do appear to come up a bit short.
5. High speed putts, incrementally at least travel to far. The difference in the 20.42 mph putt versus the 19.24 mph putt was 14 feet, or 11.9 feet per additional mph. (plug some driver numbers into flighscope and see what you get, for an extra mph of ball speed, I defy you to find anything even close to these numbers)

SFR could you plug these into the stimp calculator? and where do I find that?

[wbond]

All i know is i finished rounds 3 and 4 yesterday in Q school and for me, putting is extremely difficult. I 7 putted the 14th hole in the fourth course of q school. What a joy! It was either a putt dropping 2ft in elevation which once it got by the hole would just keep trickling, then it turned into a 30' putt uphill 2'. Twice it came back to the same spot. Terrible experience.

[SFR]

..........

[Cklguy2013]

Hey SFR,

So on point 5.

Intuitively do you think a putt rolling on the ground would go farther with an extra mph of ball speed then a driver through the air would? Maybe you're right, but I'll be damned if I can find anything on putt distance and mph's to support this, wish I could find something.. lol..

Is the stimp calculator something you have developed?

As far as the real fast ball speeds, my putts were on a flat green.

You're probably correct in that I would be surprised on how far a 12 mph ball speed putt would roll, it would actually be nice to see this.

[Cklguy2013]

If anyone out there has a GC2, it would be great to see per the unit how far putts roll, with 4, 6, 8, 10 12 and 20 initial mph of ball speed, hell and even 30 mph for that matter.

[Cklguy2013]

So pondering all this, the question for me now becomes at what speed, if any do distance gains per additional mph of ball speed off of the face of a putter max out? Or do they simple keep increasing in relationship to velocity squared? I know for sure that they do max out off the face of a driver (at around 2.9 yards per extra mph of ball speed), you can prove it on the flightscope trajectory optimizer, but maybe this isn't the case for putters. However, if it wasn't I would think that players would be teeing off with putters at the end of driver shafts. The relevance of all of this is if they don't max out the sim figures are probably correct but if they max out, for example, at say 9 feet per additional mph of ball speed the numbers will be off.