Foresight GC2 Firmware and HW Versions

[bubba22]

Any thoughts? ZMax, Frans, etc?

[goatbarn]

Yes I've learned that club face is about 85% of the original ball direction, while path only contributes about 15%.

I believe these numbers are from the trackman monthly journal, and that they correspond to testing with only drivers.

I believe that the path takes more importance the higher the loft, but it's still somewhere around 75%, 25% at best.

Ball direction should definitely start more towards the club face.

I'm a little unfamiliar with how GC2 uses these parameters, and I didn't read the whole thread, but I would be shocked if they didn't get this right.

[CPA]

That screen is way off- the target line is straight down cameras line, not golfers targetline as he is to the left.

the numbers ;
Ball
Azimuth -0.5......ball started left
sidespin 610L ..... clubface closed to path causing draw
offline -14 ball finished 14 yards left of targetline

Club
face to path -2.4 ...... club closed to path
path in to out 3.7
face to targetline 1.3 open

Are we saying these club numbers would not produce an azimuth of -0.5? How is the 75-80% calculation done?

[goatbarn]

Found it: http://www.trackman.dk/download/news...ewsletter7.pdf

[ZMax]

That screen is way off- the target line is straight down cameras line, not golfers targetline as he is to the left.

the numbers ;
Ball
Azimuth -0.5......ball started left
sidespin 610L ..... clubface closed to path causing draw
offline -14 ball finished 14 yards left of targetline

Club
face to path -2.4 ...... club closed to path
path in to out 3.7
face to targetline 1.3 open

Are we saying these club numbers would not produce an azimuth of -0.5? How is the 75-80% calculation done?

ball path is 85% of face to target(1.3) + 15% of path(3.7) = 1.5* right of target.

Shot shape should be a push draw. Ball should finish left of target but probably not 14 yards left of target.

Also, a smash factor of 1.46 is a little high for a 5 iron. PGA tour average is 1.41. Club speed is too low for that much carry.

[bubba22]

Exactly right ZMax. I just think that the numbers may be off a bit, not saying it is completely innaccurate. There is nothing perfect in life not even the GC2 or the HMT.

[CPA]

Thought it would have been a push draw with + azimuth. Thought I was going mad.

Cory can you hit 10 balls and just post the data . No need for a video. HMT not out of the woods yet unless they dispute Trackmans ball flight laws.....

[bubba22]

Remember CPA the ball flight laws are not JUST from Trackman and flightscope but also high speed camera analysis (About golf, HD golf etc) looking at the clubface, path and ball direction. There is no dispute about it in that the ball has to launch somewhere between the face angle and the path. The OLD ball flight laws were leaning towards the path as being more important than the face angle but that was before all this technology was used to better understand that the FACE angle is more important than the path, hence the 86% face vs 15% path.

[Asics]

Does the HMT utilize the ball flight information from the GC2 when calculating its numbers? Or are the HMT measurements all done independently?

[bubba22]

I would hope independently! If the HMT is using the ball info for CALCULATION then the algorythms are wrong.

[CPA]

If these are the ultimate results how can they say it was correct against the Taylormade big bucks setup?

[CPA]

And the choice of a $150 Swingbyte vs $6500 HMT is made easy.......

[bubba22]

Not sure. As we all know they had issues with the data when initially launched over a year ago. The numbers that I have seen on various videos have been slightly off. Perhaps when Cory has more time he can really test it out with the various clubs and we will see overall it is more accurate than the N=1 result. The real question has always been the horizontal azumuth accuracy which I think is the weakest part of the GC2. Again maybe Cory can post a series of 10 shot data too look at better.

[bubba22]

And the choice of a $150 Swingbyte vs $6500 HMT is made easy.......

Certainly cheaper. I wouldn't give up on the HMT. Like I said perhaps with more results we will see a better trend???

[bubba22]

And the choice of a $150 Swingbyte vs $6500 HMT is made easy.......

Or better, perhaps the HMT should be cheaper!!!!

[Asics]

If it's not accurate, it needs to be around 98 percent cheaper. Given the setup in that video, though, I don't know that you can draw conclusions. I would be interested in seeing more with a proper setup and camera angle.

[CPA]

I must say the horizontal azimuth on the GC2 is accurate from me. When aligned with correct screen measures and hitting distance the ball ALWAYS hits the screen at the point of ball continuation on screen.

My view is it is the HMT. Perhaps they need 20 more dots on the club.....

[bubba22]

Thats why I say lets get more info from Cory.

[CPA]

Agreed.....Cory are you having a nap?

Edit; Cory, 10 quick shots in clubfitting and a screenshot of the results page please.....

[bubba22]

Perhaps he can post here so not to hijack this thread too much http://forum.ottawagolf.com/showthre...2-HMT-Accuracy or http://forum.ottawagolf.com/showthre...C2-HMT-updates

[ZMax]

If these are the ultimate results how can they say it was correct against the Taylormade big bucks setup?

Who's going to question them?

The 1.46 smash factor is really bothering me...

[Santiago]

The tolerance for Azimuth in the GC2 is +- 1*.

The tolerance for face open/closed is +-1 1,5*

With this taken into account I think the number are what should be expected.

Even with Trackman there are some very quetionable numbers, but on TK this are calculated and not measured and can be off a lot more when shots are off center.

[CPA]

Yes all their error amounts may mean the HMT and TM etc technology is not accurate enough for our exacting standards.

Think I have asked before but how would Protee do re accuracy?

[bubba22]

Perhaps Santiago. Lets bear in mind that the new ball flight laws are not all based on the Trackman but on high speed camera photography. Trackman just augments the data. Plenty of information out there.

[CPA]

Just a thought but with all that time and the error amounts wouldn't you write the software to tweak the angle readings so the azimuth added up? Yes it is cheating but they would call it possible error correction.

[bubba22]

Protee numbers are very close to the ball flight laws but as well not always perfect. I would say that 80% of the time it is accurate based on the clubface and path to ball direction. There are shots especially with the open wedges that are questionable for sure.

[bubba22]

Just a thought but with all that time and the error amounts wouldn't you write the software to tweak the angle readings so the azimuth added up? Yes it is cheating but they would call it possible error correction.

I am suprised they haven't done this to some degree CPA.

[Asics]

Looking again at those numbers, I also noticed the impact on the club face was toward the toe. I assume that would account for an increased draw. More to it than just path and face alignment. More info needed.

[CPA]

Cory delete non centre hits for the moment, will make it easier.

[bubba22]

[QUOTE=Asics;461128]Looking again at those numbers, I also noticed the impact on the club face was toward the toe. I assume that would account for an increased draw. More to it than just path and face alignment. More info needed.[/QUOte

Remember it is a 5 iron so there is very little if any gear effect with irons compared to woods.