TrackMan vs GCQuad

[milborne]

I know they are both ridiculously expensive, but just wondering if anyone has any insight on whether one is better than the other or it just depends.  I see pros on the tour on TV on the range using both brands.  I'm particularly interested in one that is more useful for club data eg path, face, AOA, etc.  

[dh2o]

six of one, half dozen of the other. foresight seems to have a slight advantage in being able to get the actual spin and face data from pictures rather than doing math to calculate it like trackman, but it seems to be marginal. I see a lot more public places using trackman because its more flexible in ball placement/player handedness, etc.

[Valtiel]

I feel like the main thing that gets discussed is Trackman's (Trackmen? lol) being favored for outdoor use and GCQuad for indoor. They also measure clubhead speed differently, and thus represent smash factor a little differently as well. Not sure you can consider one way better than the other, but the numbers we see on TV I believe tend to be the Trackman "standard" of measuring CHS at the face/point of impact vs. measuring right before impact like Foresight does. 

[milborne]

that's helpful.  thank you.

[Krt22]

Trackman is still the best for real world carry. You also get club metrics like HSP, VSP, low point that the quad dones't measure.

 

QC quad is considered the best for indoor carry data and club head data at impact (impact location, face angle, dynamic lie). However it is becoming more and more popular outdoors as well for pros to get their normalized carry data...ie they can see how they are hitting it relative to their baseline since it's always the same algorithm. In some cases you will see players with both, so they can see just how much the environment is impacting their normalized data. 

[sethdavidsdad]

Depends on use. Indoor GC Quad is best especially for small spaces. But you have to put stickers on every club. No yearly fees. 

Outdoor trackman is best. Trackman has a yearly software fee and costs more to start. You will have to pay every year you use. 

[Rodmike10]

Couldn’t be happier with my Quad. Since I use it for personal, rather than business, I couldn’t justify the annual carrying cost of a TrackMan. 

 

 

[bfizzy]

Like what everyone is saying, depends on use.

 

Trackman's software is really in class of its own, but downside is setup time is a tad longer than GC quad.  If you care about actual carry distance then Trackman is for you.  Club data is essentially calculated on trackman but still very accurate, just don't compare your numbers on trackman to quad because of how they measure differently.  For example on CHS, quad measures at the face whereas Trackman measures at center of mass of the driver (or something like that) so trackman will almost always show a slower CHS vs Quad.  On AoA, Quad will typically read a little higher due to this as well.  Another thing to keep in mind is that quad requires face stickers in order to get club data.

 

Quad is great for quick setup especially if you only care about ball data.  One use case for Pros on course is to really get what club to hit not necessarily actual distance.  Lets say they hit an 8 iron 170 yards on the flat range, and on the course they are faced with an uphill shot that they believe plays longer, they can quickly plop the quad down, hit the shot and see that on quad it still reads 170 yards, but due to the wind or slope the ball only went 160 yards.  

 

Long story short, for pure club data both are good, just different ways of measuring, quad requires face dots but is actually measured, trackman is calculated but is still accurate.

 

Disclosure: I have a quad and love it, but would love a radar unit too 🙂

[cdub59]

The Quad has been an awesome tool in my son's improvement over the last year. Getting accurate club path, angle of attack, face angle, etc. has been great, especially when coupled with the precise impact position. Using the Quad in the garage in the evenings and when the weather is bad is nice, and being able to take it out to the driving range and see the same information is also nice. 

 

I've used a Trackman a handful of times but can't speak to the pros/cons of ownership. I have zero regrets regarding my Quad purchase for what it's worth. 

[kmak]

I just recently dove in and bought a Trackman 4.  I know, ridiculous price, but I am vision impaired and can't see a ball travel more than about 80 yards, so the only useful practice on a range for me is with a launch monitor. It will only be used outdoors.

 

I had a Flightscope xi tour for a while but it was not very reliable or consistent in capturing all data for each shot.

 

I looked at the GC Quad but didn't want to have to put on and take off stickers every time I practice.

 

According to my Trackman salesman, if I am only using it for personal use and never go inside, the annual software fee is pretty much a waste of money.