Is GC Quad pull-biased?

[barnum1]

Hi,

 

I went to the local golf simulator that has two GC Quads.

Both me and the guy at the other sim hit almost all balls left.

Mine were pretty straight pulls, almost no curvature. Small dispersion as well.

 

I attach a screen shot of a pretty good 8 iron (a bit low AoA and spin, but that's me).

Club path is only 0.1 degree out-to-in and face to target is 0.7 open.

How can this ball have a pull of 3.6 degrees (and go 12 meters left)?

(Don't think gear effect has to do with it - just 1 mm heely.)

 

I bascially had to aim right or open the club face to get good numbers.

 

Thanks for any insight!

[ajlacombe]

1 hour ago, barnum1 said:

Hi,

 

I went to the local golf simulator that has two GC Quads.

Both me and the guy at the other sim hit almost all balls left.

Mine were pretty straight pulls, almost no curvature. Small dispersion as well.

 

I attach a screen shot of a pretty good 8 iron (a bit low AoA and spin, but that's me).

Club path is only 0.1 degree out-to-in and face to target is 0.7 open.

How can this ball have a pull of 3.6 degrees (and go 12 meters left)?

(Don't think gear effect has to do with it - just 1 mm heely.)

 

I bascially had to aim right or open the club face to get good numbers.

 

Thanks for any insight!

Gear effect would not be right to left shot with a low heel hit - that would produce a fade.  That data does not really add up to me, that should have produced a fade.  I have a quad and it is definitely not biased to any direction - you have to align it with the reflective rod that comes with it, so you know where you are aiming.  Now that could have something to do with it, because if that was off your left to right data would be off.

[noodle3872]

Did the clubs tested have the stickers on them? If they didn’t, I wouldn’t completely trust the club data. 

[barnum1]

2 minutes ago, noodle3872 said:

Did the clubs tested have the stickers on them? If they didn’t, I wouldn’t completely trust the club data. 

Stickers on, yes! 

[gibbiesmalls]

I'd start with eliminating the variables..

 

How was the Quad aligned ? Ensure the Quad is algined at 0* (degrees) relative to your target line (screen) (very easy to do with the alignment rod). Doing so will ensure that all the angles (club path, face to path, etc) are accurate relative to the actual target line. 

 

 Sometimes these places have a tendency to just place the Quad down and if the quad isn't aligned relative to the target line at 0*,  then all numbers will be off. Even just a few degrees which are almost imperceptible to the naked eye matters to accurate ball (horizontal angles) and club data (angles).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 25, 2021 by gibbiesmalls

[barnum1]

7 hours ago, gibbiesmalls said:

I'd start with eliminating the variables..

 

How was the Quad aligned ? Ensure the Quad is algined at 0* (degrees) relative to your target line (screen) (very easy to do with the alignment rod). Doing so will ensure that all the angles (club path, face to path, etc) are accurate relative to the actual target line. 

 

 Sometimes these places have a tendency to just place the Quad down and if the quad isn't aligned relative to the target line at 0*,  then all numbers will be off. Even just a few degrees which are almost imperceptible to the naked eye matters to accurate ball (horizontal angles) and club data (angles).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the advice.

I did not have access to any alignment rod, I don't think the young attendant had either (this was off-hours).

I'll check next time.

 

What is strange is that even if the alignment was off, the numbers on my attached screenshot doesn't add up.

I guess that the Push/Pull (bottom left) would be calculated from club path and face angle?

 

 

[gibbiesmalls]

9 hours ago, barnum1 said:

 

Thanks for the advice.

I did not have access to any alignment rod, I don't think the young attendant had either (this was off-hours).

I'll check next time.

 

What is strange is that even if the alignment was off, the numbers on my attached screenshot doesn't add up.

I guess that the Push/Pull (bottom left) would be calculated from club path and face angle?

 

 

No it's calculated relative to how the quad is aligned.

 

If the quad is actually pointed 4* to the right of your target (straight line to the screen) and you actually hit a straight shot relative to the straight line to the screen, the Quad will measure you pulling the shot by 4*, because you in fact started the ball 4* left of how the Quad was aligned. Likewise, if you think your quad is pointed at 0* degrees, but isn't, then your club path measured is going to be off as well, because instead of you swinging at 0* path, you're really swinging 4 degrees in-to-out or out-to-in, but because the Quad wasn't aligned properly it measures you pretty neutral.

 

 

 

 

[barnum1]

15 hours ago, gibbiesmalls said:

No it's calculated relative to how the quad is aligned.

 

If the quad is actually pointed 4* to the right of your target (straight line to the screen) and you actually hit a straight shot relative to the straight line to the screen, the Quad will measure you pulling the shot by 4*, because you in fact started the ball 4* left of how the Quad was aligned. Likewise, if you think your quad is pointed at 0* degrees, but isn't, then your club path measured is going to be off as well, because instead of you swinging at 0* path, you're really swinging 4 degrees in-to-out or out-to-in, but because the Quad wasn't aligned properly it measures you pretty neutral.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree, the pull/push-value is affected by wrong alignment.

But shouldn't face-to-target be too?

[gibbiesmalls]

12 hours ago, barnum1 said:

 

I agree, the pull/push-value is affected by wrong alignment.

But shouldn't face-to-target be too?

yes, and assuming the Quad was misaligned, those numbers would have been affected too.

 

No number with any horizontal measurement would be correct.

Edited October 27, 2021 by gibbiesmalls

[Stuart_G]

On 10/27/2021 at 12:48 PM, gibbiesmalls said:

No number with any horizontal measurement would be correct.

 

Except face-to-path.

[LEO MODE]

I have tested this intensively before and while GC2 was slightly draw-biased, GCQ seemed slightly more radical in terms of drawing/fading more, and it occurred randomly too. For stability, I actually thought GC2 was better than GCQ. This was tested outdoor with no direct sunlight also. 

 

* It's 4 years old but Foresight hasn't updated any algorithm yet, whereas Trackman did constantly. So the data comparison on Trackman is for the most part, outdated. I have other blog posts with different comparisons. 

 

Trackman 4 vs GC2+HMT/GCQuad Comparison (As of August 2018) (Click for Photos) – LEO MODE's Reviews – Anchoring 'Only Facts' (home.blog)