Trackman 4

[Point280]

I thought I had read somewhere that this was supposed to have been in the works. Could’ve sworn it was gonna involve another device or attachment (radar or camera based) that would be integrated & placed near the impact zone? I could be way off base on that one...

[LEO MODE]

It is definitely a calculation but just like how they did it right with other measurements without seeing things, it will be a significant technological advancement to show what kind of geniuses work at Trackman if this goes as close as it gets. It really is scary to see what kind of world we live in.

[Dax]

I’m starting to see pictures and video of TRackmans new feature to show where on the face the ball is hit and it is looking very impressive. It seems like it is TM4 that is doing all the measurements and that there is no other device being used. I think this means so much to the argument that radar is weaker as it can’t see the moment of impact or given that it is behind the club it is somehow inferior. Can’t wait to see more info on his coming out of the merchandise show.

[LEO MODE]

I did lift it up by 7/8” indoor. Not much different or slightly worse (but it can be because TM is maybe slightly fade biased too. Who knows). I will do it again indoor with having lifted up like 1 1/4 inch.

[Dax]

Leo I think you have done some great testing and I will likely try to do some similar testing in the future. Those observations by Tom were very good and actually helped me in my decision a number of years ago. In terms of your testing, have you tried to elevate your CG2 a bit to see if that resolved what you are finding?

[LEO MODE]

I think this kind of closes everything by Tom Wishon. Same with my testing, it looks like Trackman is more consistent (unless my GC2 is faulty) even indoor.

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/...speed-cameras/

[Dax]

Leo, this is what I have always understood to be the case.

[LEO MODE]

https://blog.trackmangolf.com/spin-axis/

Indoor vs Outdoor Mode
Note: When using TrackMan in “outdoor” mode, the first ~30 yards of ball flight are used to determine the spin axis value. However, since the spin axis does not change during the ball flight, this measurement is considered to be made after separation from the club face.

When using TrackMan in “indoor” mode, the club delivery measurements (spin loft and face to path) are used to calculate the spin axis.

[LEO MODE]

Now I realized that even at 12' it still calculates ball spin sometimes. But what I realized was that calculating ball spin is not THAT relevant because it just gives you a little bit more or less distance for the ball roll. But if you play a simulator game, there are other factors factoring in anyway so to me what's more important is the ball flight/trajectory, and Trackman seems to catch that pretty well indoor.

[LEO MODE]

I just noticed from other person validating with Trackman website that Spin Axis is always calculated indoor, which shocked me and is a big disappointment if it is true. Because, Spin Axis is never italicized but Ball Spin sometimes is, especially on a driver shot.

So I will ask Trackman to see if this is true, because if Spin Axis is always calculated, then a) the number has to italicize to properly inform customers, and b) there needs to be a clarification on how to eliminate the calculation.

I am currently comparing both GC2 and Trackman 4 both indoor and outdoor. Although Trackman was consistent both indoor and outdoor, GC2 numbers were all very very close except Spin Axis (or Sidespin) both indoor and outdoor, by having a draw/hook biased result than Trackman.

If this GC2 is faulty and indeed Spin Axis is fixed or shows the right number in other GC2, then I think indoor GC2 could be a better solution because all other numbers were extremely close to Trackman both indoor and outdoor. And ball spin you will always get an accurate data indoor with GC2. So in other words GC2 could be the better solution at a cheaper price.

[Dax]

I see a lot of difference between the two (very interesting on TrackMan always having lower club head speed). So is this saying the camera is better than Trackman? Interestingly why did GC2 show different ball path both indoor and outdoor? I know cameras don't account for weather and outdoor condition but indoor the ball path was vastly different than the ball's actual flight.

Interesting video though.

I’m not sure if this is a posting of the old video that TM refutes in a very detailed and well written article a few years ago where they explained all the differences based on the fact that with the camera they were measuring things completely different from how TM measures. I also think this has been discussed at length on this and another forum.

[Solstice72]

Igor, could you restate why you got rid of the Trackmans?? I'm not seeing the answer to that here.

[LEO MODE]

Best bet is to watch this set of videos of 10,000fps camera vs Trackman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6928...H9L1gvNrQmZYAD

I see a lot of difference between the two (very interesting on TrackMan always having lower club head speed). So is this saying the camera is better than Trackman? Interestingly why did GC2 show different ball path both indoor and outdoor? I know cameras don't account for weather and outdoor condition but indoor the ball path was vastly different than the ball's actual flight.

Interesting video though.

[Igor-247-golf]

Best bet is to watch this set of videos of 10,000fps camera vs Trackman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6928VZkJmBI&list=PL6OoEU_pe3j9S-tUMMnH9L1gvNrQmZYAD

[LEO MODE]

I have been reading through a lot of things written on TM over the past few weeks and was surprised at some of the things that I read. In response to some of the questions above, there is an annual fee with TM and when you buy the first years fees are covered. $1k is for the hardware and the other is for listening and allows you to get continuous updates. Neither of these are mandatory and you can still use the unit without paying these annual amounts.

The more distance the better. The primary reason for stating a minimum of ten feet is to ensure the unit picks up accurate spin measurements. Ball spin is not estimated as someone posted recently in another thread. You have to put a metal dot on the ball for TM to get the spin numbers in the short distance that it can track the ball. I have between 11 and 12 feet tee to screen and for my swing speed with a driver it is enough to pick up almost all of my shots (sometimes I don't get a reading as I am still trying to find the perfect tee to use. The one I use now still seems to cause the very rare none read when it goes flying. The higher the ball speed and the lower the spin rate is what will require one to have more distance to the screen. There is a good chart on the TM site that can be used to help with this decision.

Another thing i read somewhere was that club speed is measured after impact and I am not sure where that came from as the unit tracks the club throughout the swing and don't know why one would star this especially when TM defines club speed to be the speed of the club immediately prior to impact.

One thing that i cant believe is that after all these years there has yet to be a head to head comparison between TM indoors and another launch monitor. I find this very strange indeed and has me thinking that I might pick up a used CG2 when they start becoming available to do some testing. This will also hopefully allow me to start playing TGC online, which is something that has intrigued me for sometime as it sounds like others are having a lot of fun.

What tests i have seem using using the TM indoors is that when TM does it's testing it appeared they were using very expensive cameras to validate the results that the unit was reporting. I also recall watching a video that I believe was from Japan where the creators of skytrack I believe were validating their monitors results with what a TM was reporting.

Not specific to TM, but do recall also reading somewhere that someone used flightscope indoors and noted how inaccurate it was, but also noted that no metallic sticker was put on the ball. I can see why they would say the results were poor as they used the unit indoors and missed having one of the key things required to get accurate results.

While i have not checked this in a while, I do believe that spin axis still gets calculated due to the short distances. I suspect the calculations with TM4 would be pretty good given the more accurate data that it captures for the computations. Again something that needs to be tested.

Another thing that i have read is with setting up and aligning TM. What I can say is that set-up is very simple you ensure that the unit is at the same height as your hitting area and then you set the distance from tee to screen and from the camera point to your target (I usually put something on the floor in front of the screen that gives me a visual on my line when hitting). This literally takes 30 seconds to do if you had to set up the unit before your session). Once this is done, then you are good to start hitting shots.

I also always thought TM was inferior indoor vs Foresight. But at PGA Superstore I brought my TM4 and compared with GC2 with FSX software there. Interesting even bad shanked shots TM4 read it closely than GC2. I do suspect maybe GC2 needs recalibration but how the ball was going was different than TM4.

For instance when I shanked the ball to the right, the ball did go to the right. TM4 showed the ball went to the right but Foresight showed going from the right then coming back to the middle. I shanked the ball, I didn’t hook the ball lol.

Well I am hoping to receive GC2+HMT demo soon and if there is anyone in Southern California who has a GC Quad and wants to try TrackMan 4, we can meet up in my house and I can show you my indoor simulator and we can compare the devices!