TomWishon, on 11 October 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:
alwaysatrueswinger, on 10 October 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:
A friend of mine went to an indoor center here in Norway and they told him that the simulator they used in combination with high speed cameras was a much better tool in custom fitting indoors than Trackman. They told him that Trackman only worked fully when testing outdoors on a driving range where you could see the proper ballflight.
Since 2005 our company has had a close relationship with Dr. Fredrik Tuxen, the engineer who created the Doppler Radar telemetry for the TrackMan launch monitor. During that time Fredrik has been to our company and we've been to his as we continue to share information from both of our companies' research.
What makes TrackMan so good and so far ahead of any other unit are two things - One, Doppler Radar is so far ahead of any other sensor systems used in launch monitors or golf simulators in being able to accurately and repeatedly read the flight of the golf ball. Sensor systems for other units range from camera to laser to ultrasonic to infrared and none of them can read the ball nearly as accurately in flight as Doppler Radar.
Two, Fredrik's experience with being able to program Doppler Radar to accurately read the ball in flight is by far more advanced than anyone who has tried to apply this technology to objects in flight. before joining TrackMan, Fredrik was one of the world's top engineers in creating Doppler Radar systems to read the flight characteristics of bullets and missiles for companies that manufactured the ordnance used in military weapons systems. Quite simply if Fredrik was one of the best in being able to track a supersonic projectile in flight, applying that to a golf ball is probably considered "child's play" to someone of his intellect and experience.
The reason Fredrik left his position to join TrackMan was, as he told me, because he wanted to apply his expertise to something other than products designed to wage war.
Yes, TrackMan indoors is not exactly like TrackMan outdoors. Trackman outdoors actually reads the flight of the ball all the way from launch to landing. Trackman indoors reads the ball for 8 feet, then makes calculations based on what it has seen in that 8 feet. compare that to all the other non Doppler Radar units which regardless of being used indoors or outdoors, only reads the ball for a few INCHES and then makes calculations.
We've used TrackMan both in and outdoors with our robot. In hitting the same golf club with the same shot set up parameters with the robot, the results we see indoors vs outdoors only vary a little in the angle of descent. Even the projected carry distance is uncannily accurate between in and outdoors. Valuable fitting parameters such as launch angle, spin, ball speed, horizontal dispersion, path, face angle, angle of attack do not vary indoors vs outdoors because these things are ordained within 8 feet of launch.
Bottom line? the person at this place you visited quite simply does not know what he is talking about. Period.
This was a nice response that should help to eradicate some of the folklore and mythology.
Too bad no one in a position to publish trackman data when using a Robot
to minimize swing variation, has chosen to do so.
This is the Data I would like to see. e.g. which wedge design spins the ball more with which ball..
The only player derived Trackman Data I care about is mine no one else's. The robots data is much more useful because his swing is more consistent, repeatable.
There is no doubt that the emergence of all this ball flight "instrumentation" has been beneficial. We now have data that helps us learn what is really hapenning.
What is always missing from the discussions is the subject of Calibration and Calibration Standards.
The need for this has been recently acknowledged by Dr.Tuxen. This is sadly lacking in the golf "instrumentation" industry but has been
The question arises "What known standard is Trackman Calibrated against" What is used to determine that its reported measurements are in fact accurate and to what degree. How consistent are these measurements over time etc etc.
This remains a bit of a mystery.
The independent (of the vendor) source of calibration is missing.
An instrument can be inaccurate (they all are to some degree) but if the degree of inaccuracy is known and DOES NOT CHANGE the instrument is still useful as long as all measurements are done with the same instrument.
If I am to use different Trackman units over time and I am to place credence in their reported numbers then They have to be calibrated to the SAME known STANDARD..
Hopefully the industry is headed in this direction as it matures. ( I doubt it, is is way simpler to market by folklore, Golf Industry Tradition that applies to teaching and equipment sales.)
Till then using the SAME unit setup the same way for teaching or fitting is the best we can do at this time..
Actual visual images of the "knee high to knee high" movement of the club head through the "impact" zone is still useful. At very high speed it is the closest to the truth, just expensive but great to see the actual club ground interaction and impact.
Different types of instruments can be used for different purposes.
I have especially enjoyed the re-emergence of the "Phoenixes of golf instruction that know more about it that Dr.Tuxen". They conveniently forget their folklore based preaching from the past now that Trackman has upgraded their BIOS.
Edited by SEERDS, 14 April 2016 - 10:34 AM.