How accurate is Trackman when measuring clubhead speed?

Trap Junior · February 4, 2019

Strange that they would use technology that they know is inaccurate.

bc1 · February 4, 2019

It’s probably a lot cheaper than multiple TrackMans. As for the TrackMan numbers you were asking about earlier, the settings on TrackMan are important to know. Especially the type of ball used, make sure it is set on premium ball, most reps leave their TrackMan set on hard range ball because they are usually at demo days with range balls...I have a TrackMan and have used it at places with multiple TrackMan set up at same time reading same player and as long as they are set up the same way they will give the same numbers from machine to machine.

That protracer they use on tv is fun to see the line of the ball but the numbers on it are reading very high especially on the ballspeed aspect. If it is owned by top golf all I can think of would be its calibrated for the golf balls at top golf which are hard as rocks and probably don’t go as far as normal golf balls. Or it’s just an inaccurate launch monitor

Trap Junior · February 4, 2019

It was set to premium ball. My previous trackman sessions on a driving range I don't know how they were set up. I have been on a fitness and swing speed programme for a while now and go periodically to check my clubhead speed to see if it is increasing. Seeing as the Trackman is not that accurate at reading clubhead speed according to that research paper it kind of seems futile now. I just read it can read up to +/- 2.5 mph.

On a side note I own a seing speed radar (SSR). When I use it alone it consistently read +4mph faster than Trackman in terms of club speed. However I have tried using both simultaneously to see how they compare but the trackman interferes with the SSR and starts giving strange numbers. I think the radar waves must collide or something.

jvincent · February 4, 2019

But why should I ignore the read outs of a $20,000 machine? You expect accuracy. If the readings are incorrect then they shouldn't give club speed and smash numbers and only the actual flight data.

Last night Kuchar hit a drive that went down the middle. It said his ball speed was 169mph. It carried 255. Seems very odd. His highest swing speed recorded for the whole of last season was 110.53. How is he getting 169 ball speed???

Tiger Woods had a swing speed of 129mph recorded on one drive last season yet the numbers didn't support that speed.

If Trackman can't read club speed for 20,000 then they should not be providing this parameter in their software.

Because from a fitting perspective Smash Factor is largely useless.

Every measuring device has some uncertainty. Trackman is very accurate at measuring ball parameters. It is less so at club head parameters. Knowing that you should realize that using a number that has the potential to have a compound error, i.e. smash factor, you should focus on the parameters that are measured directly.

Also, since we know that different heads read differently because of the shape comparing clubhead parameters for different heads isn't a good idea.

jvincent · February 4, 2019

It was set to premium ball. My previous trackman sessions on a driving range I don't know how they were set up. I have been on a fitness and swing speed programme for a while now and go periodically to check my clubhead speed to see if it is increasing. Seeing as the Trackman is not that accurate at reading clubhead speed according to that research paper it kind of seems futile now. I just read it can read up to +/- 2.5 mph.

Just to be clear, that paper was for the previous version of Trackman. Presumably the more recent one is more accurate.

Understanding the limits of the technology will help you interpret the data correctly.

Trap Junior · February 4, 2019

I would have thought measuring he clubhead speed would be easy. Why can't they measure the clubhead speed separately with some part of trackman while the other part measure ball flight data and not intermingle the two?

Just seems ridiculous for a machine costing 20,000 dollars for it not to give proper accurate read outs for basic things like clubhead speed.

You can't get accurate feedback on how fast you are swinging from ball speed as you could be swinging faster but mishitting it giving lower ball speed than the previous session. I dunno. It all seems a bit inadquate.

jvincent · February 4, 2019

I don't know what your background is, but the technology behind Trackman is actually pretty advanced.

The problem is that even with all the technology measuring clubhead data has a lot of variables. First off, the unit is measuring from behind so it doesn't see the club face. Also, the club face is rotating, it actually "hides the ball" from view (at least partially) until just after impact, etc.

Here's and example of what a Trackman "sees". If you want more tech details there's a lot of info on the Trackman site.

JCAG · February 4, 2019

No swing analyzer on the market "totally" measures everything they present. All use some algorithms to present some of the data. I say they can be used to compare golf clubs and help zero in on which is the best of those club configurations being tested is best for the golfer being tested. Will it be the ultimate configuration? I say no but it will be close enough for 98% of golfers thus a valuable fitting tool

One test to perform is after someone makes a club recommendation, get back on the machine and compare it with your gamer driver.

I love the golfers that cannot break 90 anguishing over a spec like clubhead speeds that are within a few MPH. It will not matter.

MakersMarsh3 · February 4, 2019

Clubhead speed is not as basic as you think at a more complex level..... Much more to it

Use something else if Tman isn't cutting it haha or use your brain and start to understand it

Worry about ballspeed... if you can't tell if youre hitting it solid that is a completely separate issue

grochol17 · February 4, 2019

Well true except for the fact that florescent lights emit EM noise that can interfere with the radars. And indoors and outdoors can be an issue if there are a lot of source of reflection indoors (e.g. inside a metal building).

Can you explain why you think the interference would be a problem? I didn't think about EM interference from lights, but everything I can find on it suggests that it should be, at highest, in the low MHz range, not the 10.5 GHz that Trackman's radar operates at. So it seems to me unlikely that the lighting conditions in the room would be messing with the radar's operation. Or are you referring to noise introduced into the *electronics* of the unit causing problems with the readings?

It's a well known issue and it's not about the light levels. At least it is with Flightscope. I admit I'm assuming Trackman is similar. And it makes sense. Most radar is actually not just about a fixed carrier wave like radio but rather a pulse based system. detection and tracking the pulse returns is all about processing a return signal in above the ambient EM noise floor. Anything that adds to the EM noise (like fluorescent light transformers) is going to make the job more difficult and effect performance.

see the 'environmental requirements' here:

https://flightscope....e-indoor-setup/

I talked to a guy I know that teaches an electronics class and he said it wouldn't make any sense for the lights to affect the signal being sent out and received by the radar itself. But, the electronics within the system that process the signal received by the radar could be affected by noise from the lights. And given that both Flightscope and Trackman caution against the use of fluorescent lights, but don't mention anything about the location of the lights (that is, it doesn't matter if they are in front of the unit or not), it seems like interference within the electronics of the launch monitors is definitely the issue. I had no idea this would be the case, but I guess you learn something new every day.

Krt22 · February 4, 2019

I wouldn't be surprised if it was the CFLs causing direct interference with the radar waves (which is a pulsed electromagnetic wave). CFLS create their own electromagnetic fields which could interfere with how the waves propagate.

Stuart_G · February 5, 2019

It's a well known issue and it's not about the light levels. At least it is with Flightscope. I admit I'm assuming Trackman is similar. And it makes sense. Most radar is actually not just about a fixed carrier wave like radio but rather a pulse based system. detection and tracking the pulse returns is all about processing a return signal in above the ambient EM noise floor. Anything that adds to the EM noise (like fluorescent light transformers) is going to make the job more difficult and effect performance.

see the 'environmental requirements' here:

https://flightscope....e-indoor-setup/

I talked to a guy I know that teaches an electronics class and he said it wouldn't make any sense for the lights to affect the signal being sent out and received by the radar itself. But, the electronics within the system that process the signal received by the radar could be affected by noise from the lights. And given that both Flightscope and Trackman caution against the use of fluorescent lights, but don't mention anything about the location of the lights (that is, it doesn't matter if they are in front of the unit or not), it seems like interference within the electronics of the launch monitors is definitely the issue. I had no idea this would be the case, but I guess you learn something new every day.

Sorry, but I think you're reading more into my statement than was intended. I wasn't talking about interference with the actual radar waves in 3d space. The EM "noise floor" is a phenomena associated with what the receiver is 'seeing' coming in through the receiver's antenna. That's very similar - but slightly different than interference with other parts of the radars electronic circuitry and wiring - which is very likely heavy shielded from any external EM signal. It's more like the amount of background noise in an audio recording.