Launch monitor for backyard

[wmblake2000]

Please help me think this thru... I bought a SwingCaddie sc300 and don’t mind that it’s not 100% accurate. I practice a lot with a net in my backyard. The problem is offline/curve. I can’t evaluate that - so I spent a week grooving a pull hook. Back it goes (thank you Roger Dunn for 90 day return)

 

What is good enough for sunny outdoor, backyard launch monitor that gives side spin, direction data? $5k+ is too much...

[grant2145]

Since a Skytrak is known to have issues with sunlight a Foresight GC2 might be your only option. You can probably find a used GC2 somewhere between $3500-$4000.

[Stuart_G]

Best price you will find is a used skytrack - maybe a bit less than 2k. But unfortunately that is known to have issues outdoors - it's very sensitive to the amount and type of light (too much can be problematic as I understand it).

 

Next would be a used Flightscope Xi+ - maybe in the $3k range.

 

Next would be a used X2 or GC2 - closer to the $4-5k range.

 

X2 would give full club data. Xi+ gives only club head speed. skytrack and GC2 - no club data, not even club head speed - but you can potentially add on HMT to the GC2 at a later point for club data (for another $4K+)

 

[grant2145]

If an accurate spin axis or curvature of the ball is most important the Flightscope might not be the best option. Owning both a GC2 and xi tour the Flightscope really struggles with the spin axis in short flight mode like hitting into a net. It's calculated based on club data and assumes center contact. Not to mention metallic dots would also be needed for accurate spin numbers.

[jwortsman]

Agree with the above posters... for short flight, a GC2 is going to be your best best, but you're going to pay for it. The great thing about them is that they're very portable and quick. As mentioned, you can likely find a used one for ~$3500-$4500. Make sure it's apple enabled (A in serial number). Despite popular opinion, there is not a transfer fee for the unit unless you need to have it serviced. The free software on ipad is an overhead view that shows line and distance.

[Stuart_G]

> @grant2145 said:

> If an accurate spin axis or curvature of the ball is most important the Flightscope might not be the best option. Owning both a GC2 and xi tour the Flightscope really struggles with the spin axis in short flight mode like hitting into a net. It's calculated based on club data and assumes center contact. Not to mention metallic dots would also be needed for accurate spin numbers.

 

But I think you're overlooking something. If the point is to work on one's swing - spin axis calculated from the club data will tell the OP all he really needs to know - since the main goal is to work on what the club is doing through impact. The only thing it's missing is the gear effect - which is only really an issue for woods/hybrid - and only if you don't get impact in the center of the face. And a $3-4 can of foot powder spray can be used to work on that impact location and quality - and is a lot more economical. And quite frankly, for those not familiar with gear effect (which is most people), the more accurate spin axis can actually be a point of confusion and misleading as to what's happening with the swing.

 

Now, yes, the radar units do need more space than the GC2 - so that can be a disadvantage - but usually that's more of an issue indoors than outdoors. And the dots can be a little bit of an annoyance - but nothing major in my opinion.

 

And yes, I also have both an Xi Tour and a GC2. GC2 is better for sim use (assuming no lefties show up to play), but for me the Flightscope is the unit of choice when I'm working on my swing.

 

 

[wmblake2000]

Thx guys for all the input. Hmmm. This will take a while to figure out. Maybe I need to look at the light and Skytrak and see if I can solve that..

[Stuart_G]

If you missed it in the other thread - apparently some news has leaked from Flightscope of a MEVO 2 coming out sometime in the near future that will include spin axis. Unfortunately no info on when it will be released or what the price point will be. But the last low end unit Flightscope had with similar capabilities (the Xi) was around $2500.

[Moxley]

Seems to be a huge gap between the price points for professional equipment and regular Joe stuff, you go from a couple of hundred to 5k just like that. Is this pricing dynamic artificial (e..g companies want to keep the price up on their mainstream instructors business) or genuinely reflective of the product quality and cost differences?

[Stuart_G]

I don't think it's artificial - at least not at the lower level. The tech jump to be able to get spin and particularly spin axis is significant. That combined with the (relatively) small customer base makes the higher prices necessary just so the companies can make a buck.

 

Now at the higher end, one might more easily argue that say the difference between a $15k Flightscope X3 and a $25k Trackman might include some artificial inflation.

 

[wmblake2000]

Yeah I keep wondering about the price point...it can’t be mfg cost. Maybe licensing costs for some software but even that seems odd since there’s no incremental cost. So if it really doesn’t take much cost to produce a device, I would think the market is big enough to lower price and increase volume to cover capex and everything else...but there must be something I’m not seeing.

[Stuart_G]

> @wmblake2000 said:

> Yeah I keep wondering about the price point...it can’t be mfg cost. Maybe licensing costs for some software but even that seems odd since there’s no incremental cost. So if it really doesn’t take much cost to produce a device, I would think the market is big enough to lower price and increase volume to cover capex and everything else...but there must be something I’m not seeing.

 

it has to cover quite a lot beyond just the manufacturing costs. Basically ALL the company's costs. Salaries, benefits, marketing, office space and facilities costs, R+D, etc... Probably a bigger chunk goes to that than to the manufacturing costs considering the (relatively) low volume of sales.

 

 

[wmblake2000]

Of course. But given my assumptions about incremental costs to produce - take a company like sky with its product line where those overhead costs are spread among several products - and given that launch monitors are also used in baseball and other sports - must be something I’m missing in understanding economics. That R&D (Capital investment) and licensing must be where the costs are. Still something doesn’t add up for me.