Connect with us

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?
  • 283
  • LEGIT26
  • WOW12
  • LOL20
  • IDHT7
  • FLOP16
  • OB8
  • SHANK48

Peter Schmitt is an avid golfer trying to get better every day, the definition of which changes relatively frequently. He believes that first and foremost, golf should be an enjoyable experience. Always. Peter is a former Marine and a full-time mechanical engineer (outside of the golf industry). He lives in Lexington, KY with his wife and two young kids. "What other people may find in poetry or art museums, I find in the flight of a good drive." -Arnold Palmer

40 Comments

40 Comments

  1. Don

    Mar 8, 2018 at 1:02 pm

    Was FlightScope engaged before doing this trial? I’ve heard using two Doppler radar systems in parallel could throw off each others’ readings. Appreciate the effort to show the same strike on both machines simultaneously, but wonder if the SW and other oddities would resolve if one radar was used at a time. This introduces variability in reproducing the same strike, but well within bounds of the average golfer hitting that 90 yard SW, etc.

    Thanks, good read

  2. MT

    Mar 7, 2018 at 3:32 pm

    They lost me at metallic stickers on every ball fir best accuracy.

    What is the cost of those sticker again?

  3. GolfCodeWeekly.com

    Feb 25, 2018 at 7:13 pm

    Sorry, i cannot get past the line

    The day of our outdoor testing was 22f

    WHO plays golf in 22f!!!!!!

    I am in Italy and 65f means a wearing a sweater

    • Peter Schmitt

      Feb 26, 2018 at 9:57 am

      Haha. Virtually no one plays golf in 22 deg F temps except people with a product to review. I had to take what mother nature gave me, unfortunately.

  4. alanp

    Feb 24, 2018 at 8:59 pm

    thanks for the review, definitely wont be picking one of these guys up but fun to see the numbers

  5. Trevor

    Feb 23, 2018 at 3:11 pm

    Peter,
    Thank you for your thorough testing. I am interested in this device, but what troubles me as a mid handicapper is your following statement:

    “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.”

    As a mid handicapper, more than half of my shots are not going to be good, so Mevo would probably misread them. Would you recommend this device to better players only then?

    • Peter Schmitt

      Feb 23, 2018 at 4:19 pm

      Good question Trevor. I think, ultimately, if you’re a mid handicapper who is getting some instruction and has recently been custom fit for clubs and you still have $500 to spare, the Mevo is a great choice as opposed to buying yet another new driver. Having that instant feedback, even if it isn’t completely perfect, is going to help you improve. You just need to go into it with an understanding of how the Mevo is going to “miss”, if you will, so that you’ll be able to translate it to what’s going to happen when you go to a real golf course.

  6. Craig Green

    Feb 23, 2018 at 2:55 pm

    Curious if anyone has any experience using the App with Android?
    Interested in purchasing one but would like to use my phone, not Ipad.

    • Andrew

      Mar 7, 2018 at 12:44 pm

      I have used it with Android and apple. When I first got it 12 months ago, the android app was brutal, and kept disonnecting and crashing.
      12 months later, its about as flawless as the apple version.
      Hope this helps.

  7. Radim Pavlicek

    Feb 23, 2018 at 12:42 pm

    I have a Mevo since September and the product is awesome. Now and then it show some shots way off, but overall it’s a great product. Gapping, optimizing smash factor or simply trying swing changes – the Mevo gives you enough information for it. What I am missing right now is some gamification, and improve the web version. E.g. there is no possibility to search the last session when I tested 3 wood. I have to go through all of my sessions and look at it.

    • PJS

      Feb 23, 2018 at 1:30 pm

      I also have the product (1.4 index) and love it. Agree with everything in the column and have done some similar testing with the trackman and found similar results. Radim, your sessions should be listed on the website by date, so I don’t understand the trouble you are having. Maybe I don’t understand what you mean by “searching”.

      • Radim Pavlicek

        Feb 26, 2018 at 1:02 am

        Well I have roughly 100 sessions, so is it possible to get only those sessions where I hit 3 wood? No, you have to first select the session and then see the shots. You can’t list all shots from all sessions and group them by club.

      • Dave C

        Nov 26, 2018 at 6:47 pm

        Hi PJS,

        Where are you logging into the site? I’m a new user and I don’t see any log-in on Mevo’s site.

  8. Toby

    Feb 23, 2018 at 12:03 pm

    I think any launch monitor that does not show sidespin or at least how far offline you are is not worth its money.

    • barry barns

      Feb 23, 2018 at 12:19 pm

      My thoughts exactly if side spin and backspin measured separately I would have bought one already…back to deciding whether to invest $2k on a skytrak I guess.

  9. Stuart Keen

    Feb 23, 2018 at 11:57 am

    I have one, and I agree with the summaries given in this review. I primarily bought it to measure for gap testing and launch data. Strike does really effect the readings. Good strikes are pretty accurate, poor ones are exaggerated by the Mevo. All in all, for the price point it’s a great device. Being able to video your swing and get the performance data for that swing is great for working on the range. Also, for the on course vloggers out there, the video capture saves a lot of editing!!

  10. HDTVMAN

    Feb 23, 2018 at 11:40 am

    I do like this, but the club speed differences are questionable. I’d like to see it compared to another system, possibly Trackman, just to compare the numbers.

  11. Peter Schmitt

    Feb 23, 2018 at 10:09 am

    Lots of comments directed at the validity of the X3, so I’ll do my best to address them all at once. Ultimately, that’s Brad’s X3, so I can’t comment to when it was last calibrated, updated, etc. He uses it daily for lessons and club fitting and he’s a respected professional in that area, so ultimately, I have to trust it and him. Yes, outdoor sand wedge spin rates looked incorrect. Yes, there was a weird shot or two elsewhere. Brad and I both noticed them. Instead of getting lost in the minutiae, though, I chose to use what was in front of me to arrive at an overall point. Ultimately, Brad was kind enough to donate his time and his X3 for the test and I need to be respectful of that. I can’t tie him and his equipment up for days just so the data looks impeccable. Golf isn’t impeccable anyway ;-). Sure, I’d love to have my own X3/GC Quad/Trackman and control my own destiny, but that’s just not in the cards I’m afraid. Thanks for reading, folks!

  12. 3 putt

    Feb 22, 2018 at 10:15 pm

    I find it odd there were differences in club head speed accuracy between stickers/no stickers and range ball/prov 1. The stickers or ball would have no effect at all on club head speed, so I would expect them to be off by the same amount.

    • Peter Schmitt

      Feb 23, 2018 at 6:06 am

      I think what you’re seeing there was related to quality of strike. Mevo really deviates when you don’t strike the ball well. If we had days to collect data and had hundreds of data points where all of that normalized out, it probably would’ve looked a little more clean.

  13. TV

    Feb 22, 2018 at 9:35 pm

    I’d be worried that the X3, a $15K machine, is so totally off on some readings – and not the other way around.

  14. Peter Schmitt

    Feb 22, 2018 at 8:08 am

    Thanks for the comments, folks, and I hope you enjoyed the review. Let me know your thoughts on the content, format, etc. and if there’s a push for more or less of something (data, on course validation, etc.), I’ll definitely keep that in mind going forward. Cheers!

    • Jack

      Feb 22, 2018 at 10:10 am

      You don’t think it’s weird that for second sw shot indoor for the x3 the club head speed is way low yet the ball speed is still 82? Some basic due diligence would show that maybe the x3 needs some calibrating too, especially the outdoor wedge spin rates.

      • Peter Schmitt

        Feb 22, 2018 at 11:02 am

        Sure, there are always peculiarities in any data set. Ultimately, though, I can’t get stuck in the weeds in overanalyzing every single data point when the overall trend is already there. I don’t like the sand wedge results and I personally wouldn’t use the Mevo for sand wedges. FWIW, I would argue the vast majority of golfers in the market for this device are not going to be analyzing their club head speed with a sand wedge.

  15. jack

    Feb 22, 2018 at 1:06 am

    104.6 club head speed will equal 250 carry max….not 270 …

    • Peter Schmitt

      Feb 23, 2018 at 8:27 am

      FWIW, since that shot was on the golf course, I had the ability to measure it. I used that feature on a Golf Buddy GPS and that shot was 258 yds to the pitch mark (it was very wet that day). Again, I’d plan on Mevo overestimating drives by roughly 5%.

      • PJS

        Feb 23, 2018 at 1:32 pm

        I have never had luck measuring Drivers or wedges. Everything in the middle seems to be picked up well though.

  16. Danny

    Feb 21, 2018 at 4:52 pm

    I believe it was actually 99 words.

  17. The dude

    Feb 21, 2018 at 4:01 pm

    It’s not for me…I’m way to good …

  18. MIKEYP

    Feb 21, 2018 at 3:55 pm

    Is it just me or was anyone else surprised and concerned about the discrepancies between the two launch monitors? In some cases on some hits, the difference was 6-8 yards and 2k spin revolutions. It also seemed like there where a lot of variable that affected the results.

    • AndLab403

      Feb 21, 2018 at 7:40 pm

      Surprised and Concerned? Considering the price gap, I’m surprised and concerned that you obviously expected the differences to be minute. With the Mevo coming in at $500 and the X3 being 30x more expensive, one could assume the differences would be exponentially different. Taking in to account the % differences being averaged out around 10% across ALL categories (when using the stickers, as recommended by Flightscope) if this review were comparing the performance of a $500k super car and a $16k family sedan and you were surprised and concerned over the discrepancies seen on performance, you would be laughed off of this forum. With price comes greater performance and accuracy.

      “All in all, it’s well worth the $499 price tag if you understand what you’re getting”

      • James

        Feb 22, 2018 at 8:17 am

        I don’t think that is a fair comparison. I expect the Speedo and other instruments on the cheap car to be just as accurate as the expensive one…

      • MWolverine1969

        Mar 26, 2018 at 12:38 pm

        Well said!

    • Peter Schmitt

      Feb 22, 2018 at 9:35 am

      I’ll chime in and submit that, overall, one should expect some discrepancy between values. The only one that genuinely had me puzzled was sand wedges (spin rate in particular, but really all sand wedge data). Apart from that, the data goes to show the tradeoff you make when you go from X3 to Mevo. X3 is $15,000 and is the weapon of choice for Bryson DeChambeau, who is likely the most analytical person in golf. Mevo is $500 and is aimed at the weekend golfer whose club distances are probably educated guesses in a lot of cases. Two different classes of machines for two different classes of golfers.

    • john flavia

      Feb 22, 2018 at 10:47 am

      Just curious, but one of the comments was something to the effect that although the two launch monitors were ‘close’, the more expensive one was much more accurate. Uhm, is that just an assumption, or did someone actually go out and measure the golf ball distances? (yea, I know, “do you think the $15k one will be less accurate than the $0.5k model?, but just saying….it wasn’t measured, just assumed?).

  19. Rich

    Feb 21, 2018 at 3:22 pm

    Cost is out of the avg golfer..

  20. dat

    Feb 21, 2018 at 2:26 pm

    Mevo is an awesome product, but I can’t help from wondering when the Mevo 2.0 will be out. Surely they can address some of the more pressing issues with a new release. That said, this thing is a game changer for sure. (no pun intended GCQuad owners)

    • Peter Schmitt

      Feb 22, 2018 at 9:41 am

      True, but personally, I think there’s a lot of improvements to be had through software/firmware updates with the existing hardware. It’s a very promising platform for amateurs.

Leave a Reply

Cancel reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Accessory Reviews

GolfWRX Spotlight: Crossrope weighted jump rope & app

Published

on

An 18-hole round of golf averages out to just under five miles of walking, which on its own is a good workout. Once you throw in some potential uphill trekking you get some serious cardio too, but if you all looking for a quick workout between rounds of golf look no further than Crossrope.

Crossrope – The details

Crossrope is a system of the weighted jump rope that allows you to quickly switch the weight of the ropes you are using to boost your workout—they range from 1/4 lbs all the way up to 2 lbs depending on the kit you start out with. There is an accompanying app that helps you go through multiple workout routines and is available free, or you can upgrade to the entire library of workout routines along with more workout tracking options.

This is NOT your middle school jump rope

The handles are heavy duty and feature precision bearings to allow the rope to move smoothly around as you go through a routine. They are also ergonomic and fit into your hand naturally, which making gripping easy, something that is really nice when you’re swinging a 2 lbs coated steel cable around. The handles also come with a fast clip system to make changing cables depending on your selected workout easier too.

The ropes themselves are made from braided steel and are almost impossible to tangle, allowing them to be easily transported and stored when not in use. All in you are getting a premium piece of workout equipment that is effective and easy to store—hard to same the same thing about a treadmill.

When it comes to a workout, skipping rope is one of the most effective cardio workouts you can do, and with Crossrope, you can get both cardio and low impact weight training when using the heaviest ropes, and follow along with the guided workouts.

As someone that hadn’t used a jump rope in over a decade, starting out lighter was a nice way to ease in before moving up, and I was pleasantly surprised how easy and fun some of the workouts in the app were. If you are looking for a fun way to add something to your workouts, or you just want to try something new to get you into golf course walking shape, this could be right up your alley. To learn more check out crossrope.com

Your Reaction?
  • 4
  • LEGIT1
  • WOW0
  • LOL0
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP1
  • OB1
  • SHANK0

Continue Reading

Accessory Reviews

WRX Spotlight: Athalonz EnVe—The best golf shoes you’ve never heard of

Published

on

One of the coolest parts of being in this part of the golfing world is being able to shed light on smaller companies that typically get overshadowed by their bigger corporate brothers.

So, this post is about one of those products that is definitely competitive against top golf shoe companies, and it’s made by a company called Athalonz, which is based out west in Arizona. Typically known for its innovative baseball cleats and insole packages, Athlonz newest addition takes the patented design to the world of golf with the EnVe golf shoe.

These have started appearing on the world long drive circuit due to the amount of traction they get, allowing players to swing harder. So for the last few months, I have gotten to wear them and see if they are as good as the company claims.

Athalonz EnVe: Living up to claims

The main selling points of these shoes are focused on two things

  1. Design that delivers more power and stability
  2. Custom comfort that lasts all day

These are somewhat difficult to combine into one shoe, and though they are on the heavier side, Athlonz are completely worth it for the benefits. It is obvious that they made strides to hit each box on the list for a great shoe. The patented design has been adapted from their baseball cleat and introduces a spikeless golf shoe with a circular design that allows the player to gain traction through the golf swing. This gives a player the chance to swing harder and faster without losing their footing. They also offer insole packages that help with correct bodyweight placement to help add an extra layer of consistency.

Secondly, it’s very noticeable that there was plenty of thought given to comfort with a roomy toe and custom insoles to fit your style. Additionally, ankle padding helps to provide more stability and comfort.

On another note, they have a good sense of style with a more classic, casual take. In addition to the pictured white/brown color, there’s a black/grey colorway as well.

After multiple months of wear in all types of conditions, these shoes have performed great for me with all the traction I need and while feeling great throughout the round.

Verdict

I am a person who tends to support smaller companies when I can if they make good products. Any support for them goes a long way—especially in the golf business. Since these shoes will set you back about $150, I wanted to be sure they are worth it for the money and they absolutely are. Seriously, for anyone looking to boost their shoe game and help alleviate aching feet and ankles, give these a shot.

 

Your Reaction?
  • 48
  • LEGIT3
  • WOW2
  • LOL3
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP2
  • OB0
  • SHANK4

Continue Reading

Accessory Reviews

GolfWRX Spotlight: Nikon Coolshot 20 GII and 20i GII

Published

on

Every golfer should have an accurate, reliable, easy-to-use rangefinder. With the new Nikon Coolshot 20 GII and 20i GII, you get all of that and more in one of the smallest, lightest packages on the market.

Not only do you get a ton of features, but when you consider these devices start at only $199.99 for the 20 G II and then $229.99 for the 20i GII ( slope adjusted version ), you get one of the best values in a rangefinder from one of the most well-known consumer optics companies in the world.

Review: Nikon CoolShot 20 GII and 20i GII

First Target Priority and 8-Second Continuous Measurement: “First Target Priority” is Nikon’s way of making sure you are picking up the flag and not a tree behind your intended target. There is nothing worse than thinking you have your distance dialed in to then have a shot fly over the green. With how quickly it lets you know the ranger finder is locked, getting that distance and double-checking can happen remarkably fast.

In the eight-second continuous measurement setting, the rangefinder will continuously measure the field of view as you scan the target area for approximately eight seconds. This setting is great when playing unfamiliar courses or trying to figure out the exact spot to a dogleg, tree, or hazard on your intended line.

Bright, 6x Monocular: Nikon is known for its glass and multi-coating technology, from telephoto camera lenses to rifle scopes, if it’s Nikon glass, it’s going to be clear, fog-resistant, and high-contrast for easy viewing. From a viewing experience perspective, the Coolshot 20 GII’s 6x monocular has an adjustable diopter for sharp focusing, along with long eye relief—meaning you can keep your glasses (or sunglasses) on when acquiring your target.

Slope-Adjusting ID Technology: With the 20i GII you have the option to get the slope-adjusted distance for any shot thanks to Nikon’s ID Technology. The mode can be turned on and off by the user to comply with USGA rules to make it legal for tournament rounds. Having tested it out on hilly terrain it’s easy to see why so many golfers mis-club going into greens when elevation changes become a lot more dramatic.

Review

The Nikon Coolshot 20 GII’s size and weight make it ideal for anyone who regularly carries and wants the benefit of knowing distances but without having to worry about weight—it weighs about the same as a sleeve of balls.

The size allows you to hold the units stable. However, I could see for those new to the rangefinder space, it could take some time getting used to when first getting acquainted with it. The best bet for this is to take it to a range or just step outside with it on your next walk and get used to hitting targets before you take it to the course—plus it makes for a fun game to see how good you really are at estimating distances.

Overall, for the price and size, it is one of the best rangefinders on the market. Plus, with a five-year warranty, you can be assured of years of use with the Nikon CoolShot 20 GII rangefinders.

Your Reaction?
  • 28
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW0
  • LOL1
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK7

Continue Reading

WITB

Facebook

Trending