TXG Youtube Channel Launch Monitor Carry Distances

VinnyG41VinnyG41 KansasMembers Posts: 7 ✭✭

Alright so TXG is one of my favorite youtube channels and for the most part I think what they put out there is unbiased and accurate. But the distances on their GCQuad just seems way too far. I took the ball data from one of shots hit in the Cobra F9 video (The Fastest Driver We've Tested – Cobra F9 Fitting data at the 14:22 minute mark) and plugged it into the flightscope trajectory optimizer and the two are pretty far off from each other. For a 184 ballspeed launching at 13 degrees and 2040rpm backspin, TXG had a carry of 338 yards and the flightscope trajectory optimizer had a carry of 310 yards. Anyone else able to explain this?

Comments

  • Z1ggy16Z1ggy16 Members Posts: 7,168 ✭✭

    I think I've heard rumors that GCQ can over estimate numbers on lower spin models, but 2K spin doesn't seem to be super low... but I did confirm flightscope does show those numbers to be around 310 carry.

    My guess would be it's probably somewhere between the two. Having a hard time finding another source online that lets me plug in numbers to get predicted distances. I've been fit at TXG and I didn't find the numbers to be "juiced" up or anything like that.

    Looking at Foresight's "Understanding Ball Launch & Club Data" manual, 180 ball speed should carry 320-350, and 190 is 342-372. Assumption is that launch is between 10 and 14 degrees and that spin is 1600-2700 rpm. So using their manual, his numbers seem expected. I just can't personally answer why flightscope is so different.

    https://www.foresightsports.com/sites/default/files/files/Understanding Ball Launch Club Data.pdf

    WITB
    DRIVER MIA
    LTD Kai'li 70X
    818H2 Tour Blue 85X
    P790 4i Modus 120X
    P770 5-PW KBS Tour FLT
    Glide Stealth 2.0 50/10SS AMT Wedge
    Glide Stealth 2.0 54/12SS AMT Wedge
    Glide Stealth 2.0 58/12SS Modus 125 Wedge (Hi Toe 58 KBS Wedge in test)
    TP Black Copper Juno w/ PX 7.0 Wedge
    TP5X
    Sun Mountain 4.5 Bag

  • kyleluteskylelutes Members Posts: 80 ✭✭

    After watching several of the video's, I was wondering the same thing. As to why, I don't know enough about the variables in LM's to venture a guess.

  • mws92mws92 Members Posts: 997 ✭✭

    GC's ball flight model gives inflated carry numbers for higher ball speed with low spin ... take those carry numbers with a grain of salt. Ball speed, launch, and spin are accurate.

  • Krt22Krt22 Members Posts: 6,141 ✭✭

    GC2/Quad gives inflated numbers for high launch/low spin shots.

  • backhillbackhill Members Posts: 91 ✭✭

    Are they at least consistent from club to club and shot to shot? I think that would be most important when making adjustments and decisions in fittings. If the actual LA, spin, speed are correct, there’s not much more you can ask for.

  • Lefty28Lefty28 Members Posts: 192 ✭✭

    Agree, I think its a GC Quad issue if anything. I'd love to see an outdoor test of GC Quad's algorithm against a Trackman radar on as close to an ideal day as possible. It also only seems to show any real difference on the driver. The irons all seem very accurate as far as carry distances are concerned. The information is consistent from shot to shot however so it really has little impact on a fitting process.

  • Lord HelmetLord Helmet Members Posts: 8,621 ✭✭

    Is that the site where the commentator is British/Irish/Scottish and the guy hitting is a lefty? If so, Ive thought "**** that guy is a bomber!". lol

    Cobra F9 - Atmos TS Black 6x
    Cobra F9 3w - Atmos TS Blue 7x
    718 TMB 19* - DG AMT White s300
    Srixon 565/765 Combo 5-PW - Project X 5.5hs
    SM5 50,54,58,62 - F,K,S Grinds - Rifle 6.0
    Bettinardi Inovai 3.0 CS
    Pro V1x
  • jvincentjvincent Members Posts: 494 ✭✭

    I'd bet that Matt's ball speed / spin combination is in a bad spot for the GC Quad algorithm.
    Don't forget, any indoor testing has to use a model for the final carry numbers. Once the model is consistent for the testing you are doing it doesn't really matter if it's 5-10 yards off. At those speeds there will be measurable differences in performance between different models of ball, so to expect the launch monitor to be perfect isn't realistic.

  •  SwooshLT SwooshLT Members Posts: 6,980 ✭✭

    @Lord Helmet said:
    Is that the site where the commentator is British/Irish/Scottish and the guy hitting is a lefty? If so, Ive thought "**** that guy is a bomber!". lol

    Ian is his name and Matt is the lefty!

  • backhillbackhill Members Posts: 91 ✭✭

    @ SwooshLT said:

    @Lord Helmet said:
    Is that the site where the commentator is British/Irish/Scottish and the guy hitting is a lefty? If so, Ive thought "**** that guy is a bomber!". lol

    Ian is his name and Matt is the lefty!

    Super knowledgeable though in terms of equipment. It's really interesting to hear their thoughts.

  • GoGoErkyGoGoErky Members Posts: 1,056 ✭✭

    @jvincent said:
    I'd bet that Matt's ball speed / spin combination is in a bad spot for the GC Quad algorithm.
    Don't forget, any indoor testing has to use a model for the final carry numbers. Once the model is consistent for the testing you are doing it doesn't really matter if it's 5-10 yards off. At those speeds there will be measurable differences in performance between different models of ball, so to expect the launch monitor to be perfect isn't realistic.

    Trackman also uses an algorithm

    @backhill said:

    @ SwooshLT said:

    @Lord Helmet said:
    Is that the site where the commentator is British/Irish/Scottish and the guy hitting is a lefty? If so, Ive thought "**** that guy is a bomber!". lol

    Ian is his name and Matt is the lefty!

    Super knowledgeable though in terms of equipment. It's really interesting to hear their thoughts.

    Matt is an ex head pro who quit that to open his own production company.

  • VinnyG41VinnyG41 KansasMembers Posts: 7 ✭✭

    @GoGoErky said:

    @jvincent said:
    I'd bet that Matt's ball speed / spin combination is in a bad spot for the GC Quad algorithm.
    Don't forget, any indoor testing has to use a model for the final carry numbers. Once the model is consistent for the testing you are doing it doesn't really matter if it's 5-10 yards off. At those speeds there will be measurable differences in performance between different models of ball, so to expect the launch monitor to be perfect isn't realistic.

    Trackman also uses an algorithm

    @backhill said:

    @ SwooshLT said:

    @Lord Helmet said:
    Is that the site where the commentator is British/Irish/Scottish and the guy hitting is a lefty? If so, Ive thought "**** that guy is a bomber!". lol

    Ian is his name and Matt is the lefty!

    Super knowledgeable though in terms of equipment. It's really interesting to hear their thoughts.

    Matt is an ex head pro who quit that to open his own production company.

    I might be wrong but Trackman has two modes right? One indoors where it is using a ball flight algorithm and one outdoors where it measures the ball flight the whole way

  • Krt22Krt22 Members Posts: 6,141 ✭✭
    edited Mar 25, 2019 9:58pm #14

    @jvincent said:
    I'd bet that Matt's ball speed / spin combination is in a bad spot for the GC Quad algorithm.
    Don't forget, any indoor testing has to use a model for the final carry numbers. Once the model is consistent for the testing you are doing it doesn't really matter if it's 5-10 yards off. At those speeds there will be measurable differences in performance between different models of ball, so to expect the launch monitor to be perfect isn't realistic.

    Im not so sure about this. For certain shots it inflates it quite a bit (20+ yards). I think a lot of people use GC2 and perhaps needlessly chase "low spin" due to the inflated numbers GC2 gives for low spin/high launch shots.

  • GoGoErkyGoGoErky Members Posts: 1,056 ✭✭

    @VinnyG41 said:

    @GoGoErky said:

    @jvincent said:
    I'd bet that Matt's ball speed / spin combination is in a bad spot for the GC Quad algorithm.
    Don't forget, any indoor testing has to use a model for the final carry numbers. Once the model is consistent for the testing you are doing it doesn't really matter if it's 5-10 yards off. At those speeds there will be measurable differences in performance between different models of ball, so to expect the launch monitor to be perfect isn't realistic.

    Trackman also uses an algorithm

    @backhill said:

    @ SwooshLT said:

    @Lord Helmet said:
    Is that the site where the commentator is British/Irish/Scottish and the guy hitting is a lefty? If so, Ive thought "**** that guy is a bomber!". lol

    Ian is his name and Matt is the lefty!

    Super knowledgeable though in terms of equipment. It's really interesting to hear their thoughts.

    Matt is an ex head pro who quit that to open his own production company.

    I might be wrong but Trackman has two modes right? One indoors where it is using a ball flight algorithm and one outdoors where it measures the ball flight the whole way

    It uses an algorithm for both. Iirc the algorithm uses the ball flight data from the radar plus the camera to plug into its algorithm. Indoors it doesn’t get to capture the entire ball flight so from my understanding there’s a formula used to estimate the data.

    I forgot where I saw it(either here, **** or maybe a blog) but somebody did a comparison and the accuracy/performance of the gc quad was the best

  • jvincentjvincent Members Posts: 494 ✭✭

    @Krt22 said:

    @jvincent said:
    I'd bet that Matt's ball speed / spin combination is in a bad spot for the GC Quad algorithm.
    Don't forget, any indoor testing has to use a model for the final carry numbers. Once the model is consistent for the testing you are doing it doesn't really matter if it's 5-10 yards off. At those speeds there will be measurable differences in performance between different models of ball, so to expect the launch monitor to be perfect isn't realistic.

    Im not so sure about this. For certain shots it inflates it quite a bit (20+ yards). I think a lot of people use GC2 and perhaps needlessly chase "low spin" due to the inflated numbers GC2 gives for low spin/high launch shots.

    IIRC GCQuad give more accurate spin/launch numbers than GC2. Whether they use the same algorithms, I have no idea.

  • Krt22Krt22 Members Posts: 6,141 ✭✭

    It seems like it based on what TXG/Shields/Crossfield post.

  • LEO MODELEO MODE Posts: 139 ✭✭

    @Lefty28 said:
    Agree, I think its a GC Quad issue if anything. I'd love to see an outdoor test of GC Quad's algorithm against a Trackman radar on as close to an ideal day as possible. It also only seems to show any real difference on the driver. The irons all seem very accurate as far as carry distances are concerned. The information is consistent from shot to shot however so it really has little impact on a fitting process.

    I already did this before:

    https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1676178/final-result-trackman-4-vs-gc2-hmt-gcquad/p1

    TXG and Ian are currently powered by Foresight and an advisory at Foresight so they wouldn't be able to say they're using a flawed algorithm. Also I've been confirmed by Foresight before that they're working on a fix. It's been almost a year already though. And Flightscope had the same issue until last year and they recently fixed it, although now their carry is a bit too low than optimal. And to be precise, it's roughly around 2600rpm or lower that triggers it. It's due to their apex being recorded too high.

    http://leomode.home.blog

    Reviewing all golf techs

    TrackMan 4, GC2+HMT, GC Quad
  • VinnyG41VinnyG41 KansasMembers Posts: 7 ✭✭

    @LEO MODE said:

    @Lefty28 said:
    Agree, I think its a GC Quad issue if anything. I'd love to see an outdoor test of GC Quad's algorithm against a Trackman radar on as close to an ideal day as possible. It also only seems to show any real difference on the driver. The irons all seem very accurate as far as carry distances are concerned. The information is consistent from shot to shot however so it really has little impact on a fitting process.

    I already did this before:

    https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1676178/final-result-trackman-4-vs-gc2-hmt-gcquad/p1

    TXG and Ian are currently powered by Foresight and an advisory at Foresight so they wouldn't be able to say they're using a flawed algorithm. Also I've been confirmed by Foresight before that they're working on a fix. It's been almost a year already though. And Flightscope had the same issue until last year and they recently fixed it, although now their carry is a bit too low than optimal. And to be precise, it's roughly around 2600rpm or lower that triggers it. It's due to their apex being recorded too high.

    This is exactly what I was after. Awesome stuff man! I've got two questions for you though if you don't mind:

    • What do you do that allows you to have access to all these launch monitors?
    • As a guy that owns a Skytrak (since I didn't want to fork over the extra money for GC2) to get through the harsh midwest winters, what's your opinion on it vs the upper level LMs?
  • LEO MODELEO MODE Posts: 139 ✭✭

    @VinnyG41 said:

    @LEO MODE said:

    @Lefty28 said:
    Agree, I think its a GC Quad issue if anything. I'd love to see an outdoor test of GC Quad's algorithm against a Trackman radar on as close to an ideal day as possible. It also only seems to show any real difference on the driver. The irons all seem very accurate as far as carry distances are concerned. The information is consistent from shot to shot however so it really has little impact on a fitting process.

    I already did this before:

    https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1676178/final-result-trackman-4-vs-gc2-hmt-gcquad/p1

    TXG and Ian are currently powered by Foresight and an advisory at Foresight so they wouldn't be able to say they're using a flawed algorithm. Also I've been confirmed by Foresight before that they're working on a fix. It's been almost a year already though. And Flightscope had the same issue until last year and they recently fixed it, although now their carry is a bit too low than optimal. And to be precise, it's roughly around 2600rpm or lower that triggers it. It's due to their apex being recorded too high.

    This is exactly what I was after. Awesome stuff man! I've got two questions for you though if you don't mind:

    • What do you do that allows you to have access to all these launch monitors?
    • As a guy that owns a Skytrak (since I didn't want to fork over the extra money for GC2) to get through the harsh midwest winters, what's your opinion on it vs the upper level LMs?
    • It was in my introduction of my post :smile:
    • Someone also posted about Skytrak vs Trackman 3 on the web. But basically Skytrak is the very least launch monitor out of the bunch that you can reliably trust the numbers (therefore that's why it's called an entry level to professional launch monitors). I heard that for driver shots, however, as ball speed goes higher their numbers tend to get finicky, notably the ball speed reporting lower than Trackman/GC2/GCQ. It doesn't seem to have a carry inflated issue like GC2/GCQ but it has a lot of non-reads and virtually impossible to use it outdoor which GC2/GCQ don't have. For training purposes, Skytrak will do you just fine but if you want to play sim with it, a lot of people seem to get frustrated by non-reads and delays so they go with GC2 and never look back. Hope this helps.

    http://leomode.home.blog

    Reviewing all golf techs

    TrackMan 4, GC2+HMT, GC Quad
  • TollBrosTollBros Overseer of the Test Range Sponsors Posts: 4,843 ✭✭

    I like their channel. Someone pointed it out the other day to me and it's probably the one YouTube channel out there with real knowledge out there. The Scottish gentleman is intelligent, well spoken and actually knows his stuff. Details, profiles, dynamics, etc...he's good. I've been accustomed to the mind numbing usual suspects on YouTube so it's nice to see someone credible and knowledgeable. Saying all that, yes the carry numbers are inflated for sure. Probably 5-6%

    http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/forum/608-greengrassevaluationscom/

    Please click the link above for our Sponsor area with rare and Tour only products.
  • VinnyG41VinnyG41 KansasMembers Posts: 7 ✭✭

    @LEO MODE said:

    @VinnyG41 said:

    @LEO MODE said:

    @Lefty28 said:
    Agree, I think its a GC Quad issue if anything. I'd love to see an outdoor test of GC Quad's algorithm against a Trackman radar on as close to an ideal day as possible. It also only seems to show any real difference on the driver. The irons all seem very accurate as far as carry distances are concerned. The information is consistent from shot to shot however so it really has little impact on a fitting process.

    I already did this before:

    https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1676178/final-result-trackman-4-vs-gc2-hmt-gcquad/p1

    TXG and Ian are currently powered by Foresight and an advisory at Foresight so they wouldn't be able to say they're using a flawed algorithm. Also I've been confirmed by Foresight before that they're working on a fix. It's been almost a year already though. And Flightscope had the same issue until last year and they recently fixed it, although now their carry is a bit too low than optimal. And to be precise, it's roughly around 2600rpm or lower that triggers it. It's due to their apex being recorded too high.

    This is exactly what I was after. Awesome stuff man! I've got two questions for you though if you don't mind:

    • What do you do that allows you to have access to all these launch monitors?
    • As a guy that owns a Skytrak (since I didn't want to fork over the extra money for GC2) to get through the harsh midwest winters, what's your opinion on it vs the upper level LMs?
    • It was in my introduction of my post :smile:
    • Someone also posted about Skytrak vs Trackman 3 on the web. But basically Skytrak is the very least launch monitor out of the bunch that you can reliably trust the numbers (therefore that's why it's called an entry level to professional launch monitors). I heard that for driver shots, however, as ball speed goes higher their numbers tend to get finicky, notably the ball speed reporting lower than Trackman/GC2/GCQ. It doesn't seem to have a carry inflated issue like GC2/GCQ but it has a lot of non-reads and virtually impossible to use it outdoor which GC2/GCQ don't have. For training purposes, Skytrak will do you just fine but if you want to play sim with it, a lot of people seem to get frustrated by non-reads and delays so they go with GC2 and never look back. Hope this helps.

    I saw you have a statistics background and just wondered if the launch monitors were part of your job or just a hobby you have on the side. But yeah the skytrak comment is definitely helpful. Honestly just trying to gather information on it. I typically look more into ball data and not carry distances unless I'm hitting wedges. I rarely hit driver on it but I am interested to see what they do about the high ball speed issue since it sounds like something is in the works.

  • LEO MODELEO MODE Posts: 139 ✭✭
    edited Mar 31, 2019 9:50pm #23

    @TollBros said:
    I like their channel. Someone pointed it out the other day to me and it's probably the one YouTube channel out there with real knowledge out there. The Scottish gentleman is intelligent, well spoken and actually knows his stuff. Details, profiles, dynamics, etc...he's good. I've been accustomed to the mind numbing usual suspects on YouTube so it's nice to see someone credible and knowledgeable. Saying all that, yes the carry numbers are inflated for sure. Probably 5-6%

    I like him too and love his shows. I just personally think you also have to acknowledge any flaw you might see and honestly accept it or prove it wrong for people to perceive as more trustworthy. Truth always gets revealed one way or another and it'll be more embarrassing to find that out later when everyone else already found out about it.

    I saw you have a statistics background and just wondered if the launch monitors were part of your job or just a hobby you have on the side. But yeah the skytrak comment is definitely helpful. Honestly just trying to gather information on it. I typically look more into ball data and not carry distances unless I'm hitting wedges. I rarely hit driver on it but I am interested to see what they do about the high ball speed issue since it sounds like something is in the works.

    Skytrak is suprisingly accurate in terms of their ball flight algorithm. It matches with various gold standards out there in the industry so whatever carry I see on Skytrak I would rely on those numbers. The problem would only occur if Skytrak would misread, and it looked like on faster ball speeds Skytrak misrepresents the numbers either slightly faster or slower. But again, all in all I would likely rely on their numbers as long as you have a tolerance within 10yds or so.

    http://leomode.home.blog

    Reviewing all golf techs

    TrackMan 4, GC2+HMT, GC Quad
  • gretzky17gretzky17 Members Posts: 19 ✭✭

    If you launch it above 15.5 degrees with less than 2500 RPM on a relatively centered strike, the ball will carry about 8-10 yards too far and roll another 8-10 too far.

    Those 360 yard bombs with the F9/ST 190G were probably more like 340 -- still amazing!

Sign In or Register to comment.