Garmin Approach R10 Portable Golf Launch Monitor

[rodders]

Another vid but just info and pretty sure this bloke hasn't got one

 

 

[123bdh]

2 hours ago, RCGA said:

 

I just listened to it. He's tried the beta version which had issues and is now testing the production(?) version for a video review. He said the results are "very close" 

 

My guess is that you're within a few yards (vs GC quad) on anything 50-150y. Driver is within 10y. Garmin has more outliers/errors than the Quad, but most will be able to live with given the price. An upgrade over the Mevo and G80, but not as accurate as the Mevo+ 

 

Rick is sponsored by Garmin so I think what he says needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Although im sure he will review it well, editing can make things look much better than they really are. 

[Stevie989]

I pre ordered from snaition within 24 hours of its release so hoping I’ll fall within their initial allocation. Took my money anyway. 
 

ordered of the basis Of the club head data. 
 

my take on it is this - coming from a cycling background powermeters that measure the watts you produce became increasingly affordable and tech trickled down. Accuracy improved and was within various tolerances depending on the unit/installation. The key thing was your particular unit being ‘consistent’ the actual value being 10 or 15 watts under or over reality didn’t actually matter much in terms of use. As long as it gave the same readings day in day out and you could measure change. 
 

distance aside (which hopefully will be ballpark). If it gives consistent and relative face/path/AoA/etc then I can use it to implement changes in my swing (I’ll be using it in a net and at my courses practice area so will be able to see ballflight during use). I’m way to in to out and shallow. So if I can use it to measure these metrics while masking swing changes then it’s doing a job for me that’s worth the asking price. 

[North Butte]

5 minutes ago, Stevie989 said:

If it gives consistent and relative face/path/AoA/etc then I can use it to implement changes in my swing (I’ll be using it in a net and at my courses practice area so will be able to see ballflight during use). I’m way to in to out and shallow. So if I can use it to measure these metrics while masking swing changes then it’s doing a job for me that’s worth the asking price. 

Other than people wanting a cheap simulator, what you describe is the thing we're all hoping for. It would be totally unprecedented at this kind of price point. 

 

The problem is going to be finding out just how trustworthy that information is. Figuring out if the estimated distances are close to correct is pretty straightforward. And anyone with a "real" launch monitor can compare things like launch angle and ball speed to see if R10 is doing a good job.

 

But knowing that it is giving you reliable, detailed feedback enough to help you change your swing path and swing plane is something it's hard to validate. I'm wondering if any YouTube reviewers is going to be able to really nail that down to a satisfactory level of trust. 

[968cab]

Shiels mentioned his ongoing testing with this unit in his newest Podcast.  GCQuad and laser validation with human monitoring in the landing area.

 

So, eventually he’ll have the video out…but again, he is a Garmin ambassador, and said as much during the discussion.  

[North Butte]

2 minutes ago, 968cab said:

Shiels mentioned his ongoing testing with this unit in his newest Podcast.  GCQuad and laser validation with human monitoring in the landing area.

 

So, eventually he’ll have the video out…but again, he is a Garmin ambassador, and said as much during the discussion.  

Does his GCquad give face angle, club path and AoA information? If so he ought to be able to validate those.

[RickyD321]

This does seem too good to be true. As a precious post said, the only review is by a relatively small youtuber (there's a couple other guys that have made videos without even having one in their hands 🙄) you'd have thought someone like Rick shiels being a garmin ambassador would have been first up. I feel it could be marketing genius. Just a few tiny tasters, everyone goes absolutely mental pre ordering and then it actually turns out to be nothing more than mediocre. I'm gonna wait this one out a little while and see some more in depth reviews. 

[968cab]

I assume it does…it’s pretty much the gold standard, no? (Along with TrackMan)

[J13]

16 minutes ago, 968cab said:

I assume it does…it’s pretty much the gold standard, no? (Along with TrackMan)

 

GC Quad is the most accurate device on the planet for club head data for sure.  Camera system will always be better than radar in this regard.

[PostandGhost]

24 minutes ago, J13 said:

 

GC Quad is the most accurate device on the planet for club head data for sure.  Camera system will always be better than radar in this regard.

That's right.  I'm just waiting on the day that Trackman adds camera hardware equipment on the side to supplement the radar from behind or Foresight adds radar equipment from behind to supplement the GC Quad on the side.

[968cab]

1 hour ago, J13 said:

 

GC Quad is the most accurate device on the planet for club head data for sure.  Camera system will always be better than radar in this regard.

I admit, I was being a bit snaky with that answer…after all GC2 with the HMT already set the bar, the Quad takes it to the next level. 👍🏼

 

 

[whumber]

6 hours ago, North Butte said:

Does his GCquad give face angle, club path and AoA information? If so he ought to be able to validate those.

 

I suspect so, he doesn't really show club information in his videos but he seemed to be griping about having had to pay for those features in the podcast.

Edited July 15, 2021 by whumber

[968cab]

Yes, I remember him saying that now, versus “the basic unit”….must be a software add-on.  Too rich for my blood to even research it. 😂

[North Butte]

7 hours ago, whumber said:

 

I suspect so, he doesn't really show club information in his videos but he seemed to be griping about having had to pay for those features in the podcast.

Well hopefully he'll get some value for money from those features when he does an accuracy review of R10. I just hope he doesn't compare the usual generic stats of launch/spin/distance and take the R10 clubface and path data for granted. 

[BatcatZA]

10 hours ago, 968cab said:

Yes, I remember him saying that now, versus “the basic unit”….must be a software add-on.  Too rich for my blood to even research it. 😂

Clubhead measurement is a US$4,000 add on for the quad 😖

[J13]

These small personal devices are fun but they aren't accurate.  It all depends on what expectations are. If you want something to play courses at home and do some practicing without breaking the bank they are hard to beat.  If you are looking for true numbers that will translate to a real course then these aren't the answer.  There hasn't been 1 I've tried to date that was accurate with spin, yardages, ect...   And i'm not talking a few yards off, more like 15-20yds.

Edited July 15, 2021 by J13

[whumber]

5 minutes ago, J13 said:

These small personal devices are fun but they aren't accurate.  It all depends on what expectations are. If you want something to play courses at home and do some practicing without breaking the bank they are hard to beat.  If you are looking for true numbers that will translate to a real course then these aren't the answer.  There hasn't been 1 I've tried to date that was accurate with spin, yardages, ect...   And i'm not talking a few yards off, more like 15-20yds.

 

If you were saying the spin was off I would believe you, but something else is seriously wrong with your testing if even the cheaper models are off by 15-20 yards.

[968cab]

59 minutes ago, whumber said:

 

If you were saying the spin was off I would believe you, but something else is seriously wrong with your testing if even the cheaper models are off by 15-20 yards.

 

I agree.  I’ve used an SC300, and a SkyTrak outdoors side by side with a TrackMan…more like 2-5 yards difference, with the SkyTrak being a touch better than SC

 

I own a Uneekor indoor sim as well, and they trail in tolerance there very slightly too, IMO.

 

Unless you’re charging a fee for fitting/coaching, I think these $500 units meet the purpose quite well.  JMO 

Edited July 15, 2021 by 968cab

[PostandGhost]

It looks like the ball and club data features are free.  The premium app service is what requires a paid subscription.   See attachment, maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Garmin R10 Features.pdf

[whumber]

1 minute ago, From_Parts_Unknown said:

It looks like the ball and club data features are free.  The premium app service is what requires a paid subscription.   See attachment, maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Garmin R10 Features.pdf 1.55 MB · 0 downloads

That was in reference to GCQuad, not the R10.

[PostandGhost]

10 minutes ago, whumber said:

That was in reference to GCQuad, not the R10.

Ah, my b!

[mgoblue83]

I really hope someone who actually knows how these metrics work and has access to Trackman and Quad will review this. The thing is there is a good chance the carry distance and spin will be nowhere near accurate but that doesn't matter IF this thing can provide accurate path and face numbers. Accurate path and face for $600 is absolutely game changing for improving your game. Far more important than accurate spin and carry distance.

[J13]

55 minutes ago, whumber said:

 

If you were saying the spin was off I would believe you, but something else is seriously wrong with your testing if even the cheaper models are off by 15-20 yards.

 

I've testing almost all of them outdoors and indoors.  They almost all had my 7 iron going around 200yds meanwhile it's my 175 club.  It seems like shake a magic 8 ball on spin and just spit out a random number.  Even if they were 10yds off, that still doesn't help me get better.  I need to trust the numbers then apply to the course.  Again I think they are fun devices but I'm holding out for another 4-5 years when they will be pretty much spot on at the $500-1000 price point.  It's coming 

[whumber]

1 minute ago, J13 said:

 

I've testing almost all of them outdoors and indoors.  They almost all had my 7 iron going around 200yds meanwhile it's my 175 club.  It seems like shake a magic 8 ball on spin and just spit out a random number.  Even if they were 10yds off, that still doesn't help me get better.  I need to trust the numbers then apply to the course.  Again I think they are fun devices but I'm holding out for another 4-5 years when they will be pretty much spot on at the $500-1000 price point.  It's coming 

 

That's just a completely bizarre result, especially for a 7 iron. It still sounds to me like there's some kind of methodology flaw in how you're testing them. Are you going off of carry or total distance? I would agree that total distance from most monitors is not a useful metric, but carry distance tends to be pretty accurate. I know from my own testing that both Mevo and SC300 tend to be within a couple yards of trackman and/or lasered distances outside of mishits. Driver will be a bit less accurate but even there 15-20 yards would be a big miss.

[J13]

24 minutes ago, whumber said:

 

That's just a completely bizarre result, especially for a 7 iron. It still sounds to me like there's some kind of methodology flaw in how you're testing them. Are you going off of carry or total distance? I would agree that total distance from most monitors is not a useful metric, but carry distance tends to be pretty accurate. I know from my own testing that both Mevo and SC300 tend to be within a couple yards of trackman and/or lasered distances outside of mishits. Driver will be a bit less accurate but even there 15-20 yards would be a big miss.

 

 

With all due respect and for context, I'm a scratch player that plays in tourneys and use LM's all the time.  These were all devices being used by the owner and they wanted me to try them to give my thoughts.  I'm talking strictly carry distance.  I have literally not tried one that was within 10yds of my true numbers consistently.  Maybe if I tried some with the reflective dots it would be better for spin, not sure.  Or maybe it has something to do with the players speed or attack angle, who knows.  I'm not trying to dump on these devices but I don't think the software is where it needs to be just yet.  The hardware is certainly capable which is the exciting part.  I firmly believe we will look back on the days when PGA Tour players lugged around some giant GC Quad or Trackman and laugh just like "i can't believe they carried those from tourney to tourney".

[whumber]

22 minutes ago, J13 said:

 

 

With all due respect and for context, I'm a scratch player that plays in tourneys and use LM's all the time.  These were all devices being used by the owner and they wanted me to try them to give my thoughts.  I'm talking strictly carry distance.  I have literally not tried one that was within 10yds of my true numbers consistently.  Maybe if I tried some with the reflective dots it would be better for spin, not sure.  Or maybe it has something to do with the players speed or attack angle, who knows.  I'm not trying to dump on these devices but I don't think the software is where it needs to be just yet.  The hardware is certainly capable which is the exciting part.  I firmly believe we will look back on the days when PGA Tour players lugged around some giant GC Quad or Trackman and laugh just like "i can't believe they carried those from tourney to tourney".

 

Sorry if I'm giving the wrong impression, I don't doubt your experience is true it just sounds like there may be some confounding variable. You mention that they were all setup by other people for you to try. Could it be that the iron lofts set in the monitors weren't adjusted properly to what you use? If they were setup for a stronger lofter iron and you're playing a more traditionally lofted blade that would definitely explain them reading long by the amount you stated.

[J13]

17 minutes ago, whumber said:

 

Sorry if I'm giving the wrong impression, I don't doubt your experience is true it just sounds like there may be some confounding variable. You mention that they were all setup by other people for you to try. Could it be that the iron lofts set in the monitors weren't adjusted properly to what you use? If they were setup for a stronger lofter iron and you're playing a more traditionally lofted blade that would definitely explain them reading long by the amount you stated.

 

No worries it's a good discussion.  I'm not sure about the answers to your questions just going by my limited experience on multiple devices.  Skytrak I know for sure was setup properly because I was doing speed work with a TPI guy indoors and he had one.  The others like Rhapsody were just setup and I jumped on and hit like 10 shots.

[Red4282]

1 hour ago, J13 said:

 

 

With all due respect and for context, I'm a scratch player that plays in tourneys and use LM's all the time.  These were all devices being used by the owner and they wanted me to try them to give my thoughts.  I'm talking strictly carry distance.  I have literally not tried one that was within 10yds of my true numbers consistently.  Maybe if I tried some with the reflective dots it would be better for spin, not sure.  Or maybe it has something to do with the players speed or attack angle, who knows.  I'm not trying to dump on these devices but I don't think the software is where it needs to be just yet.  The hardware is certainly capable which is the exciting part.  I firmly believe we will look back on the days when PGA Tour players lugged around some giant GC Quad or Trackman and laugh just like "i can't believe they carried those from tourney to tourney".

Tbh, i dont care what carry distance it gives me. I know thats a calculation. Same thing goes for when i use a 15k-20k monitor indoors. That distance is calculated as well. I do pay attention to whats actually measured, like ball speed and launch angle. You can then plug those numbers in to optimizer and kinda get a rough idea of what the carry distance would be. I do think the accurate spin measurements, or lack there of is whats missing in this space.

[r.yan163]

 

vs Mevo + , Skytrack, and GC2

[J13]

6 minutes ago, r.yan163 said:

 

vs Mevo + , Skytrack, and GC2

 

Nice for him to say it is but theres zero evidence shown in the super long video filled with no real info.  Hopefully someone serious does a video with a live comparison.