Connect with us

Equipment

Callaway SR-1, SR-2 and SR-3 golf balls

Published

on

Callaway Speed Regime Golf Balls: SR-1, SR-2, SR-3

If a golfer doesn’t have the swing speed of a tour pro, are they really going to get the most out of a tour-level golf ball?

According to Dave Bartels, senior director of R&D for Callaway golf balls, the answer is likely no, which is why Callaway’s new Speed Regime line of golf balls have three different constructions to suit golfers with different swing speeds.

BbyaM2bIIAAuKQQ

The SR-1 is designed to work best for golfers with driver swing speeds of 90 mph or less. Like Callaway’s premium golf balls of the past, it uses the company’s dual-core construction and a thin mantle layer that allow the balls to launch with less spin off longer clubs and more spin off shorter clubs. But the four-piece ball has a new HEX aerodynamic pattern that helps golfers achieve a higher trajectory for more carry distance.

The SR-2 will work best for golfers with driver swing speeds between 90-and-105 mph. Its HEX dimple pattern is balanced to reduce drag at the high-speed portion of a ball’s flight, such as the first third of a driver’s flight. But it also adds lift during the last third of flight, when a golf ball is traveling with less speed. The five-piece golf ball also has an additional mantle layer that helps boost ball speed and reduce spin for better performance with longer clubs.

The SR-3, which targets golfers with driver swing speeds of 105 mph or more, will be the 2014 Callaway ball of choice for the company’s tour players. Its HEX dimple pattern is designed to reduce the drag forces that rob high-speed golfers of distance and accuracy.

Like the SR-2, the SR-3 is a five-piece golf ball. The most important layer of the ball is likely its outer mantle, according to Greg Sabella, director of marketing for Callaway Golf balls, because of its impact on feel. In the past, Callaway has been criticized for the firm feel of its premium golf balls, such as the 2013 HEX Tour Black. But the SR-3’s much softer ionomer outer mantle makes it feel noticeably softer than previous models, Sabella said.

Each of the Speed Regime golf balls have a thermoplastic urethane “Duraspin” cover that is specially formulated to accommodate the three different HEX dimple patterns. They will be available in January and sell for $47.99 per dozen.

Your Reaction?
  • 8
  • LEGIT2
  • WOW2
  • LOL2
  • IDHT2
  • FLOP2
  • OB1
  • SHANK4

Zak is the Editor-in-Chief of GolfWRX.com. He's been a part of the company since 2011, when he was hired to lead GolfWRX's Editorial Department. Zak developed GolfWRX's Featured Writer Program, which supports aspiring writers and golf industry professionals. He played college golf at the University of Richmond (Go Spiders!) and still likes to compete in tournaments. You can follow Zak on Twitter @ZakKoz, where he's happy to discuss his game and all the cool stuff that's part of his job.

60 Comments

60 Comments

  1. Pierre

    Mar 20, 2014 at 3:54 pm

    All this talk about balls for different swing speeds is a bit confusing.Do you remember when there were 90 and 100 compression balls.,Was this not based on swing speed?To me golf sales of all kinds are all based on marketing.How many golfers have heard of or tried Miura golf products?Best product in golf without huge marketing!

    • Locoguru

      Jun 26, 2014 at 9:05 am

      Yes I remember when there were 80,90,100 and 110 compression golf balls!

  2. Gary Lewis

    Feb 28, 2014 at 1:09 am

    Have tried the SR-2 and SR-1 golf balls a little the past few days. Very good golf ball imho, except for that price. For the money the Project A ball compares very favorably to the SR-1 and SR-2, again imho. I tested the two balls on a launch monitor with a 7 iron and the distance between the 2 is very close, SR-2 might be just a tad longer, insignificant it appears. The Project A has a seam on the cover, would be nice if it was seamless, even if cost a few dollars more a dozen. They both seem pretty good around the greens, albeit my testing has been on damp greens.

  3. froneputt

    Feb 16, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    I was surprised at the price point for the speed regime balls … and not pleasantly.

    For the non-speed freaks, the Chrome launches high and obtains distance. Around the greens, it stops on full shots, runs a little on delicate shots around the green.

    I will try the SR1 … when I can find it at a discount.

  4. Adam

    Feb 2, 2014 at 7:47 pm

    I just tried a sleeve of the SR2’s. I usually play the Chrome +, and I can say that there is a tangible difference. The SR2 feels much softer off of the irons and spins much much more around the greens. With that said, I will probably stick with the Chrome + due to price. I can not see myself spending 47.00 per dozen balls. That’s the reason I never gave the Lethals or the Pro V1’s a go. Chrome + is good enough for me and is still the best price / performance option in my opinion.

  5. Joe

    Jan 8, 2014 at 3:34 pm

    Just want to help everyone out there. If you cannot afford or don’t want to pay near $50 for balls, try Callaway Chrome+. For $30, there is not a better ball out there. Distance, durability, spin, feel…it is nearly as good as the $50 selections, and maybe just as good.

  6. Kirk

    Jan 8, 2014 at 12:41 pm

    After reading all the comments on here about balls I’ve got to comment. Been in the business for way to many years and playing for over 50 with a plus handicap for more than the last 30. I can’t tell the difference between ANY of the 2 piece balls, they all feel like rocks. Also when playing the 2013 Titleist PRO V1X (my ball of choice since they increased the cover durability) I only use a ball for 9 holes then it goes into the shag bag. A lot of the better golfers play a ball for only 2 or 3 holes. What I have found is that the vast majority of ball choices are made by 2 different variables, the players skill levels (if you can’t break 90-100 NO ball will help or hurt)and the players wallet (lots of guys playing PRO V1’s or other pro line balls that can’t play a lick).

  7. Gary

    Jan 7, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    Hex Chrome plus has been the best ball I have played over the last couple years irregardless of price point. I just hope they keep making the chrome plus or I will have to start my annual golf ball search all over.

    • JCorona

      Jan 15, 2014 at 1:13 pm

      irregardless?? so that’s kind of a double negative. Which in turn it negates your point… unless you mean it is without without regard

      • chris

        Dec 15, 2014 at 1:12 pm

        JCorona –
        Gary believes the Hex Chrome+ is the best ball he has played. Did you understand that? If yes, then Gary communicated with you, so move on. And if you understood, then his “double negative” did not negate his point.

    • Noreen

      Feb 9, 2014 at 8:40 pm

      Unfortunately, it looks like the Chrome and Chrome+ are going away with the introduction of the SR line. I was at the PGA Show a few weeks back, and the Chrome line was nowhere in sight in Callaway’s section. Moreover, if you look at all the retailers, the Chrome line is now either not on the shelves, or on sale. So, if that’s your ball of choice – now is the time to stock up!!

  8. Gary Lewis

    Jan 3, 2014 at 10:59 am

    Callaway seems to be going with the new trend of golf balls being designed for different swing speeds but the price of these are going to turn some people off undoubtedly. Callaway had a pretty good thing going with the Hex Chrome, a very good golf ball at a somewhat lower price. I doubt the SR 1 will do as well as the Hex Chrome sales wise unless it is an absolutely unbelievable ball. The Taylormade RocketBallz Urethane or similar golf balls would probably be MUCH better value over all.

  9. Andrew

    Dec 21, 2013 at 5:31 pm

    Wow, with this soft, knee jerk-like entry, it sure looks like Cally is conceding its ball business to atrophy… very unimpressed.

  10. markb

    Dec 21, 2013 at 12:56 am

    Here’s what I don’t understand about the regimes. . . why base your marketing strategy on a measurement that the vast majority of golfers DON’T KNOW? Seriously, what percentage of golfers get Scoped? Every golf wonk who reads these articles or who works at Callaway, but a tiny fraction of the hackers who trod their way around 18 at the local muni. Do you think that those blissfully ignorant hackers would rather be tagged with ball that declares to the world they are “slow swingers” or game the ball that makes them feel like a pro?

    I’m just saying, they don’t sell so many “magnum” condoms because all men are above average.

  11. David

    Dec 20, 2013 at 8:47 pm

    Lots of good points out there. From what I have read on the WRX, it is about spin. Lower compression balls will not spin as much, so it would seem that the SR-1 will feel an awful lot like the old TF x-2000(?). In my opinion and experience, if you want a higher spinning ball, it’s going to feel soft around the greens and not necessarily travel as well off the tee. For Callaway, the HEX Black was pretty consistent on both, but the Chrome+ was sweeter. Although, my all-time favorite is the Tour i(s).

  12. barry

    Dec 20, 2013 at 8:34 am

    I’m playing the SPEED REGIME 3 even if it hurts my game because of my ego!

  13. DS

    Dec 19, 2013 at 7:58 pm

    So they’re just going to copy the only good ball on the market (Bridgestone B330 Series) and hope they sell? Good idea. Way to be revolutionary. Callaway is now officially awful in every category.

    • JCorona

      Jan 15, 2014 at 1:14 pm

      give them a call… I am sure they would be open to all of your revolutionary ideas.

  14. bellsy13

    Dec 19, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    I never understood why people spend such ridiculous amounts on golf balls. Order off the net peeps. Knetgolf is a great site for getting refurbished/mint balls in bulk. I received 10 dozen pro V1’s in mint condition for $210 delivered to my doorstep. There is no difference, other than price, to these balls and brand new ones. Great way to save big $$

  15. PJ

    Dec 18, 2013 at 10:48 pm

    I would guess that 48 is the msrp but they will run about 40 in the stores would be willing to try at that price but not 48… Id just play pro v1x for that much

    • JUAN

      Dec 19, 2013 at 11:58 am

      how stupid to name ur golf balls regime

      did hitler , mussolini design the golf balls

      guess i wont be buying callaway golf balls this season

      • juan

        Dec 19, 2013 at 9:09 pm

        what a stupid comment I made earlier today

        I was mad at the regime name and took out on everyone

        the word is still offensive to me , but someone reminded me that word is Webster dictionary , I still wont use the ball unless I get as a f\gift btw ds bridgestone I believe copied benhogan superdeep golf ball which was the best ball of all time in golf

  16. Bret

    Dec 18, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    These balls sound interesting. I am an avid golfer with a single digit handicap index but I am sorry I refuse to pay in the high forty dollar range for ANY golf ball. For me this new introduction is dead on arrival.

  17. Cab Callaway

    Dec 18, 2013 at 6:53 pm

    I would be interested in trying the SR2’s and 3’s to see they compare to the Hex Tour and Chrome+. I play and love both these balls and would have a tough time switching to the SR’s if I don’t see a significant improvement, especially for $48/dozen.
    I love Callaway equipment, but don’t think it’s a wise move to price them at $48/dozen.
    If you want the public to try your product, initial pricing is key and with this price point, many will not even try this ball.

  18. Fred

    Dec 18, 2013 at 5:45 pm

    In the end, how much does the swing speed a ball is designed for really matter? I’ve read right here on WRX that regardless of which ball you use to complement your SS, there’s not going to be much difference in yardage.

    • Martin

      Dec 18, 2013 at 8:45 pm

      Its not about yardage. Its about finding a desired ballflight!

    • Joe

      Jan 8, 2014 at 3:28 pm

      The balls are going to compress differently dependent MOSTLY on swing speed. Just like people with differing swing speeds should be using different shafts and flexes.

  19. stephenf

    Dec 18, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    Good deal. Wonder if these will feel like rocks on the shorter shots around the green, like all their previous “premiums” (and almost all the rest of every manufacturer’s “premiums”)?

    • Fred

      Dec 18, 2013 at 5:16 pm

      Good point, Stephen. Just for kicks, I got some of the new Nicklaus balls. They’re very hard, too.

    • Martin

      Dec 18, 2013 at 8:43 pm

      Rocks come on. The Tour I(s)was really soft around the greens. But I agree that the trend is that the premiums are getting harder and harder around the greens. I would love to have a room full of 2007 Pro V1:s….

      • Rich

        Jan 5, 2014 at 5:34 pm

        Pro V1’s have never been “soft”. Any of us old enough to have played wound golf balls know about soft golf balls. Pro V1’s soft, HA! They are rocks next to the old Titleist Tour Prestige golf balls (urethane cover) and let’s not forget balata balls.

        • Michele

          Jun 22, 2014 at 10:47 am

          Interesting discussion. I play the ProV1 and liked the Callaway Tour Hex Black tour. I have an 80 mph swing but loved the way they stopped on the green for approach shots. But agree that these balls are not so soft. I’d play a balata if they made them again!

    • Joe

      Jan 8, 2014 at 3:29 pm

      Stephen, just so you know…balls hitting the center of the club face feel much softer than toe shots and shanks.

  20. Stephen Lee

    Dec 18, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    what i dont get about the golf ball market is that why arent the companies try to lower their price and increase their sales dramatically? i say that if a new pro v1s cost 2-3 dollars a piece rather than $5 a piece, many people would opt to buy new balls instead of used balls. i not saying that used balls are bad but as i started to believe that new balls perform better. i began to dislike the used balls. i dont know how many balls are being used in a typical round for average players but for me its 2-3 balls a round, 4 rounds a month (once every week), 24 rounds a year given that im living in canada (only half season for us northern warriors :X ). thats 24×3 so 72 balls but lets say 80-85 if i had to use more balls. therefore 7 dozens of golf balls should do for me over the season. 7x$50 for the most expensive/premium ball would cost me $350 a season. i would say thats too much compared to the used pro v1s where i can it for $1 a piece (AAA+ condition i know a guy who works at golf course who doesnt play golf but gathers lost balls for side cash) so i can get same about of balls for about $90 dollars. thats too big of a difference for me. $260 dollar difference. if the companies were to reduce the price for half. that would be $175. but if the used ball prices go down respectively, it would cost me $45 for used balls. but now the difference is much smaller. $135 difference for 85 balls. thats $1.50 difference in each. i would say for golfers who spend $50 a round, 24 rounds a year, thats $1200 and $175 wouldnt hurt so much. if i can enjoy brand new(new version every year) very shiny Pro v1s $175 the entire season. i guess that not a bad investment given that i get positive psychological effect from playing very best conditioned golf balls. heres my 2 cents. what do you think guys?

    • Martin

      Dec 18, 2013 at 5:21 pm

      I’m a hunter and used to argue with guys over the cost of premium bullets over regular cup and core.
      $60 for a box of 50 Barnes TSX bullets vs $25 for 100 Hornadys.
      The cheapest part of hunting is the only part that comes in contact with the Animal.

      The ball is the same, it’s the only thing that’s in play on all shots.

      I easily spend $500+/year on whoring equipment, my membership is just under $3,000, I spend a few hundred at least on clothes, I tend to buy shoes every 1.5 years for $200 at least, I regrip every other year, $100 so it’s easy to get way over $4,000 before balls, tees and gloves.

      $200 more a year to play balls you like that help your game represents less than 5% of my annual golf spend.

      • johnleg

        Dec 19, 2013 at 5:39 pm

        I, also, tend to spend a lot on whoring equipment. Usually only when in Vegas.

    • Fred

      Dec 18, 2013 at 6:14 pm

      Some good points raised, Stephen. Adding on to what you’re saying: let’s face it, there are a lot of weekend golfers who use use balls like the Pro V series who really aren’t good enough to take full advantage of what the balls have to offer. So why spend the extra money, when, in the long run, they could play just as well with balls in the $20-$25 price range. My goal on a par four is to get on the green in two. If I use, say, a Bridgestone e-7 and come up 5-10 yards shorter than if I used a Pro V, who cares; I’m still on in two. Of course, I understand there are other variables to take into consideration as well, i.e., how well the ball putts, how well shots stick on the green, etc., but I don’t make a living playing golf. So…

    • markb

      Dec 23, 2013 at 12:05 am

      The reason ProV’s cost so much is not because they are more expensive to make compared to cheap balls. They aren’t. It’s because Titleist CAN charge that much thanks to the ball’s performance and our perception of its performance.

      The goal of Titleist and all other manufacturers is not to find a way to make cheaper balls, but to find a way to get us to pay MORE for the next dozen balls we buy. If you owned twice as may balls would you play twice as much golf? No, you wouldn’t. Rounds per year per golfer are pretty static.

      If another company can make a ball that is convincingly better than the ProV, then they can get ProV prices. Until then, they are all just squabbling over the same finite pieces of pie.

      • Rich

        Jan 5, 2014 at 5:08 pm

        Wrong. The process of putting a urethane cover on a golf ball alone, is much more expensive than cheaper balls (surlyn covers and the like). I’m not saying Acushnet don’t try and get more out of golfers for Pro V’s compared to cheaper balls, but the statement that urethane balls cost the same to make as the others is not correct.

  21. Regis

    Dec 18, 2013 at 1:11 pm

    Seems to me that Callaway is following the Bridgestone lead but its SR1 (which is geared for lower swing speeds) has little chance of succesfully competing with the RX RXS or E series in this market especially at this price point

  22. kwoot

    Dec 18, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    Yep, was excited about trying these until I saw the price,guess I will just stick to used balls….

  23. Joe

    Dec 18, 2013 at 12:58 pm

    I have played Callaway balls for a number of years, and truly believe that the HEX dimpled pattern of my CHROME+, offers a real advantage over the traditional dimples from all the others. In the wind, there is NO ball that will outperform CHROME+. I will try the new S2 or S3… But they will have to be better than great to get me to switch.

  24. golfing badger

    Dec 18, 2013 at 12:29 pm

    interested to see which ball is closest to my chrome +.

    chrome + is the best ball i have ever played- spins like a top on the wedges, flat trajectory on the driver and durable…plus it’s affordable!!! SR 2 or 3? it will be a tough battle to get in my bag

  25. brian

    Dec 18, 2013 at 11:46 am

    chrome and especially chrome+ were great great great great balls.
    i guess they did not sell enough for callaway to keep them?

    • Rusty Cage

      Dec 18, 2013 at 12:25 pm

      Brian,

      I received a tweet from Harry Arnett at Callaway today saying that the Chrome line is staying put.

  26. aktheace

    Dec 18, 2013 at 11:33 am

    I had the opportunity to try a 3 ball sleeve of the new balls. I normally play Callaway Hex Chrome or +. I have 109mph driver swing speed, I saw a lost in distance and performance with irons and wedges. I think it Callaway plot to have a 3 types of ball all at 47.00 a dozen.

  27. Mike

    Dec 18, 2013 at 11:28 am

    It’s a shame that manufacturers change the names of their golf balls every 2-3 years. How on earth do they expect to build brand loyalty? Titleist does it right. Even though the formulation of their premium offerings have changed over the years, the company has stuck with the branding of the Pro V1 and Pro V1x. Say the words “Pro V1” and almost any golfer will know what you mean.

    • TJ

      Dec 19, 2013 at 5:02 pm

      I sort of agree but if you create a new ball with the same name of a ball that didn’t perform very well in the past why would you try it. ProV1’s have been a great ball for generations so yes you would not change that name but if you were to name a new ball after a ball that sucked even if it was the best ball in the game im sure it would fail to because of past experience with a ball of that name.

      Same reason why I would not play a callaway ball myself because about 4 years ago I would hit a wedge shot into the green and have to replace it with a new one on the next hole because the cover was so soft it would tare it up with wedges.

  28. jc

    Dec 18, 2013 at 11:22 am

    hex chrome and the plus…best balls for the buck…31 dollars and they are just as good as the pro vs, hex tour, any tm ball out there…and they don’t get beat up as bad as the titleist balls..

    the bonus? I can’t lose them!!!!

  29. Lee

    Dec 18, 2013 at 10:56 am

    I must confess I have my doubts about a 5 piece ball for us 90 – 105 mph club head speed players. Sure I didn’t get on with the TM Penta and Lethal but I will try a sleeve of TR2’s against the original HEX Chrome which works really well for me. Fortunately I’ve got 3 doz bought on clearance put away for next season!

  30. Rich

    Dec 18, 2013 at 6:32 am

    Even though it’s a little clicky, I still think the Tour ix is the best ball Callaway have made and clicky doesn’t matter if you use an insert putter! Still have a couple of dozen left too.

    • Cab Callaway

      Dec 18, 2013 at 6:56 pm

      Rich,
      I also liked the Tour IX, but switched last year to the Hex Tour and also the Chrome+, which I’ve found to be superior balls in distance and control around the greens, at least for my game.
      I will be purchasing a few dozen of the Hex Tour since they are currently on sale for $29/dozen. A great ball at a great price.

      • Rich

        Dec 19, 2013 at 7:53 am

        CC,
        Yeah I’ve tried the Chrome+ but not really wowed by it. Like you I might have to get some of the hex black tours now they’re on sale to try.
        Cheers

  31. Martin

    Dec 18, 2013 at 6:23 am

    I will likely give the SR2 and Sr3 a try.

    My favourite ball in recent memory was the Tour iz, but I have now run out of them.

  32. marko

    Dec 18, 2013 at 3:27 am

    $48 bucks a dozen? Thats $4.17 a ball,
    Shame on you Callaway! Do something good for golf lower your prices.
    OH! Thats right its not about the customer. But ALL about the stock holders. The game of Golf is in a sad Decline. Only the rich can play now.

    • Bean

      Dec 18, 2013 at 8:51 am

      marko, check lostgolfballs dot com. You don’t always have to play brand new equipment. The only time I buy brand new balls is when I have a gift certificate to redeem.

    • Matt

      Dec 18, 2013 at 10:33 am

      Check out the Hex Chrome and Hex Chrome Plus. Best ball for the money IMHO.

      • Martin

        Dec 18, 2013 at 8:48 pm

        Agree! The 2012 version of Hex Chrome felt like an older Pro V1. The 2013 version wasnt as good in my opinion.

    • johnleg

      Dec 19, 2013 at 5:42 pm

      Unfortunately, golf balls are expensive to make. Most companies don’t make any money off of balls. It’s more for brand recognition.

  33. NG

    Dec 18, 2013 at 12:34 am

    Won’t the SR3 suit anyone because it has 5 layers…if you don’t swing it quick enough your only going to compress or activate the outer layers that produce more spin???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

pga tour

Ian Poulter WITB 2018

Published

on

Equipment is accurate as of the 2018 Honda Classic (2/20/2018).

Driver: Titleist 917D2 (9.5 degrees)
Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei Orange CK 60TX

3 Wood: Titleist 917F2 (16.5 degrees)
Shaft: Matrix Ozik TP7HDe 7X

Hybrid: Titleist 816 H2 (21 degrees)
Shaft: Aldila Tour Green ATX85H TX

Irons: Titleist 716 T-MB (4), Titleist 718 AP2 (5-PW)
Shaft: Project X LZ 130 7.0

Wedges: Titleist Vokey SM7 (52-12F, 56-14F, 60-04L)
Shaft: Project X LZ 7.0 (52), True Temper Dynamic Gold Tour Issue S400 (56, 60)

Putter: EvnRoll Tour ER
Grip: Odyssey Pistol

Putter: Rife Antigua Island Series
Grip: Odyssey Pistol

Ball: Titleist Pro V1x

Related:

Discussion: See what GolfWRX members are saying about Poulter’s clubs. 

Your Reaction?
  • 3
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW0
  • LOL0
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK0

Continue Reading

Equipment

10 interesting photos from Wednesday at the Honda Classic

Published

on

From our featured image of Rory McIlroy putting in a different kind of work on the range in the pre-dawn hours of Wednesday morning, to shots of Tiger Woods’ similarly early pre-pro-am range work, to some intriguing shots Patrick Reed’s prototype Bettinardi putter, GolfWRX has plenty of fantastic photo content from PGA National.

Here are some of the best shots from Wednesday.

Tiger Woods at work prior to his crack-of-dawn pro-am tee time. Gentleman in the foreground: You do know that as the sun has not yet risen, you do not need a hat to aggressively combat its rays, right?

“My feet do not look like that at impact.”

All eyes on the Big Cat…except those focused on the live video on their cell phone screens…

Let’s take a closer look at Patrick Reed’s yardage book cover. Yep. As expected.

Do you think these two ever talk?

It looks like Captain Furyk already has some pre-Ryder Cup swag in the form of a putter cover.

If you’ve ever wondered why Rickie Fowler selected these interesting locations for his tattoos, this may be the answer: Visible when he holds his finish.

We’ve got a Pistol Pete sighting!

Patrick Reed’s droolworthy Bettinardi Dass prototype.

Fun fact: Wedges double as magnetic putter cover holders, as Jon Curran illustrates here. Healthy application of lead tape, as well, from the tour’s resident graffiti artist.

Wednesday’s Photos

Discussion: See what GolfWRX members are saying about the photos in our forums.

Your Reaction?
  • 8
  • LEGIT2
  • WOW0
  • LOL2
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK6

Continue Reading

Accessory Reviews

Review: FlightScope Mevo

Published

on

In 100 Words

The Mevo is a useful practice tool for amateur golfers and represents a step forward from previous offerings on the market. It allows golfers to practice indoors or outdoors and provides club speed, ball speed, smash factor, launch angle, spin rate, carry distance and flight time.

It also has a video capture mode that will overlay swing videos with the swing data of a specific swing. It is limited in its capabilities and its accuracy, though, which golfers should expect at this price point. All in all, it’s well worth the $499 price tag if you understand what you’re getting.

The Full Review

The FlightScope Mevo is a launch monitor powered by 3D Doppler radar. With a retail price of $499, it is obviously aimed to reach the end consumer as opposed to PGA professionals and club fitters.

The Mevo device itself is tiny. Like, really tiny. It measures 3.5-inches wide, 2.8-inches tall and 1.2-inches deep. In terms of everyday products, it’s roughly the size of an Altoids tin. It’s very easy to find room for it in your golf bag, and the vast majority of people at the range you may be practicing at won’t even notice it’s there. Apart from the Mevo itself, in the box you get a quick start guide, a charging cable, a carrying pouch, and some metallic stickers… more on those later. It has a rechargeable internal battery that reaches a full charge in about two hours and lasts for about four hours when fully charged.

As far as software goes, the Mevo pairs with the Mevo Golf app on your iOS or Android device. The app is free to download and does not require any subscription fees (unless you want to store and view videos of your swing online as opposed to using the memory on your device). The app is very easy to use even for those who aren’t tech savvy. Make sure you’re using the most current version of the firmware for the best results, though (I did experience some glitches at first until I did so). The settings menu does have an option to manually force firmware writing, but updates should happen automatically when you start using the device.

Moving through the menus, beginning sessions, editing shots (good for adding notes on things like strike location or wind) are all very easy. Video mode did give me fits the first time I used it, though, as it was impossible to maintain my connection between my phone and the Mevo while having the phone in the right location to capture video properly. The only way I could achieve this was by setting the Mevo as far back from strike location as the device would allow. Just something to keep in mind if you find you’re having troubles with video mode.

Screenshot of video capture mode with the FlightScope Mevo

Using the Mevo

When setting up the Mevo, it needs to be placed between 4-7 feet behind the golf ball, level with the playing surface and pointed down the target line. The distance you place the Mevo behind the ball does need to be entered into the settings menu before starting your session. While we’re on that subject, before hitting balls, you do need to select between indoor, outdoor, and pitching (ball flight less than 20 yards) modes, input your altitude and select video or data mode depending on if you want to pair your data with videos of each swing or just see the data by itself. You can also edit the available clubs to be monitored, as you will have to tell the Mevo which club you’re using at any point in time to get the best results. Once you get that far, you’re pretty much off to the races.

Testing the Mevo

I tested the FlightScope Mevo with Brad Bachand at Man O’ War Golf Center in Lexington, Kentucky. Brad is a member of the PGA and has received numerous awards for golf instruction and club fitting. I wanted to put the Mevo against the best device FlightScope has to offer and, luckily, Brad does use his $15,000 FlightScope X3 daily. We had both the FlightScope Mevo and Brad’s FlightScope X3 set up simultaneously, so the numbers gathered from the two devices were generated from the exact same strikes. Brad also set up the two devices and did all of the ball striking just to maximize our chances for success.

The day of our outdoor session was roughly 22 degrees Fahrenheit. There was some wind on that day (mostly right to left), but it wasn’t a major factor. Our setup is pictured below.

Outdoor testing setup with FlightScope X3 (foreground) and Mevo

The results of our outdoor testing are shown below. The testing was conducted with range balls, and we did use the metallic stickers. The range balls used across all the testing were all consistently the same brand. Man O’ War buys all new range balls once a year and these had been used all throughout 2017.  The 2018 batch had not yet been purchased at the time that testing was conducted.

Raw outdoor data captured with range balls including metallic stickers. Mevo data (blue) and X3 data (orange) were both generated from the same exact shots.

You’ll notice some peculiar data in the sand wedge spin category. To be honest, I don’t fully know what contributed to the X3 measuring such low values. While the Mevo’s sand wedge spin numbers seem more believable, you could visibly see that the X3 was much more accurate on carry distance. Below is a quick summary of the percent differences between each of the parameters as presented by the Mevo and the X3 in our outdoor session when separated out for each club. As previously mentioned, though, take sand wedge spin with a grain of salt.

Table showing the percent difference of each parameter between Mevo and X3 grouped by club (outdoor testing).

The first thing we noticed was that the Mevo displays its numbers while the golf ball is still in midair, so it was clear that it wasn’t watching the golf ball the entire time like the X3. According to the Mevo website, carry distance, height and flight time are all calculated while club speed, ball speed, launch angle and spin rate are measured. As for the accuracy of the measured parameters, the Mevo’s strength is ball speed. The accuracy of the other measured ball parameters (launch angle and spin rate) is questionable depending on certain factors (quality of strike, moisture on the clubface and ball, quality of ball, etc). I would say it ranges between “good” or “very good” and “disappointing” with most strikes being categorized as “just okay.”

As for the calculated parameters of carry distance, height and time, those vary a decent amount. Obviously, when the measurements of the three inputs become less accurate, the three outputs will become less accurate as a result. Furthermore, according to FlightScope, the Mevo’s calculations are not accounting for things like temperature, humidity, and wind. The company has also stated, though, that future updates will likely adjust for these parameters by using location services through the app.

Now, let’s talk about those metallic stickers. According to the quick start guide, the Mevo needs a sticker on every golf ball you hit, and before you hit each ball, the ball needs to be placed such that the sticker is facing the target. It goes without saying that it doesn’t sound like a whole lot of fun to spend time putting those stickers on every ball, let alone balls that will never come back to you if you’re at a public driving range. Obviously, people are going to want to avoid using the stickers if they can, so do they really matter? Below is a table of data showing the percent difference between the Mevo’s data and the X3’s data of what we collected outdoors with a driver and range balls with and without the use of the stickers.

Table showing how the percent difference of each parameter changes between Mevo and X3 when you use the metallic stickers and when you don’t

The FlightScope website says that the metallic stickers “are needed in order for the Mevo to accurately measure ball spin.” We observed pretty much the same as shown in the table above. The website also states they are working on alternative solutions to stickers (possibly a metallic sharpie), which I think is wise.

Another thing we thought would be worth testing is the impact of different golf balls. Below is a table of data showing the percent difference between the Mevo’s data and the X3’s data of what we collected outdoors with a driver and range balls as compared to Pro V1’s. All of this data was collected using the metallic stickers.

Table showing how the percent difference of each parameter changes between Mevo and X3 when you switch from range balls to Pro V1’s

As shown above, the data gets much closer virtually across the board when you use better quality golf balls. Just something else to keep in mind when using the Mevo.

Indoor testing requires 8 feet of ball flight (impact zone to hitting net), which was no problem for us. Our setup is pictured below. All of the indoor testing was conducted with Titleist Pro V1 golf balls using the metallic stickers.

Indoor testing setup with FlightScope X3 (foreground) and Mevo

The results of our indoor session are shown below.

Raw indoor data captured with Pro V1’s including metallic stickers. Mevo data (blue) and X3 data (orange) were both generated from the same exact shots.

Below is a quick summary of the percent differences between each of the parameters as presented by the Mevo and the X3 in our indoor session when separated out for each club.

Table showing the percent difference of each parameter between Mevo and X3 grouped by club (indoor testing)

On the whole, the data got much closer together between the two devices in our indoor session. I would think a lot of that can be attributed to the use of quality golf balls and to removing outdoor factors like wind and temperature (tying into my previous comment above).

As far as overall observations between all sessions, the most striking thing was that the Mevo consistently gets more accurate when you hit really good, straight shots. When you hit bad shots, or if you hit a fade or a draw, it gets less and less accurate.

The last parameter to address is club speed, which came in around 5 percent different on average between the Mevo and X3 based on all of the shots recorded. The Mevo was most accurate with the driver at 2.1 percent different from the X3 over all strikes and it was the least accurate with sand wedge by far. Obviously, smash factor accuracy will follow club speed for the most part since ball speed is quite accurate. Over every shot we observed, the percent difference on ball speed was 1.2 percent on average between the Mevo and the X3. Again, the Mevo was least accurate with sand wedges. If I remove all sand wedge shots from the data, the average percent difference changes from 1.2 percent to 0.7 percent, which is very, very respectable.

When it comes to the different clubs used, the Mevo was by far most accurate with mid irons. I confirmed this with on-course testing on a relatively flat 170-yard par-3 as well. Carry distances in that case were within 1-2 yards on most shots (mostly related to quality of strike). With the driver, the Mevo was reasonably close, but I would also describe it as generous. It almost always missed by telling me that launch angle was higher, spin rate was lower and carry distance was farther than the X3. Generally speaking, the Mevo overestimated our driver carries by about 5 percent. Lastly, the Mevo really did not like sand wedges at all. Especially considering those shots were short enough that you could visibly see how far off the Mevo was with its carry distance. Being 10 yards off on a 90 yard shot was disappointing.

Conclusion

The Mevo is a really good product if you understand what you’re getting when you buy it. Although the data isn’t good enough for a PGA professional, it’s still a useful tool that gives amateurs reasonable feedback while practicing. It’s also a fair amount more accurate than similar products in its price range, and I think it could become even better with firmware updates as Flightscope improves upon its product.

This is a much welcomed and very promising step forward in consumer launch monitors, and the Mevo is definitely worth a look if you’re in the market for one.

Your Reaction?
  • 100
  • LEGIT9
  • WOW2
  • LOL4
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP7
  • OB3
  • SHANK21

Continue Reading

19th Hole

Facebook

Trending