I really appreciate you guys taking the time to make these videos. For me, the appeal to the R10 is all the additional statistics provided over their competition. When considering the $500 Mevo or Rapsodo an additional $100 for a better unit is worth it. But I did have concerns regarding the accuracy of these additional stats. In my opinion bad data is worse than no data. So after watching the R10 vs TrackMan vs GCQuad videos, I think Garmin has a some work to do in order to make this a worth the extra $100 and live up to the advertisements.
I agree with this assessment as well. I would much rather have the SC300i or the Mevo than this unit. I'm hoping they come out with some updates for this unit soon.
I agree, but you also have to consider that a lot of these numbers that they are missing big are calculated, meaning that they are going to improve. A little unlucky for the garmin because they’re getting all these reviews early while overtime it will improve a lot.
Thx a lot! Got the r10 myself and discovered some misreadings myself on the range especially with angle of attack hitting down like hitting down 7-9 degrees with driver 😂 and some times the readings doesn’t match up with real ballflight. Hope Garmin takes care with the software
this review is solid gold. thanks for doing it. R10 seems to have some very serious accuracy issues indoors. carry looks ok for pitches but all the other data looks to be complete garbage. to be able to still get the carry reasonably close for irons means that carry calculation is only using clubhead speed, ball speed and launch angle (and Garmin seems ok here). everything else though seems to be calculated separately and not factored into the carry distance (fortunately!). my concern is with all this extra data being reported despite being complete and obvious nonsense for example at 9:44 with huge club path and face angle numbers but 0yd horizontal deviation--things like this should not even be allowed to be displayed by software. it is very alarming because it goes to show there was very little validation done by Garmin's engineering/testing/software team.
Thanks for watching, Joe! Hopeful that Garmin will improve things via future firmware or software updates, similar to what FlightScope did in the early days of the Mevo+.
Great video! Thanks for taking the time to share! Deviations seemed to be fairly consistent. My thoughts are that maybe you can calibrate the two devices simultaneously by changing the alignment/distance of the Garmin so the path, direction and whatever else can be zeroed in to match the GC4. Once that is done, maybe you will see a slight difference in the device location for the Garmin and more consistent reads? Basically make sure the Garmin is aligned in the most consistent location to match the data for the GC4 before testing.
Thanks for your feedback. The alignment with the Quad was perfect, as there was very little difference between horizontal launch angle reads. So the only other adjustment we could make would be ball-to-R10 distance. We used the recommended 6 ft, and if it's like other radar units, changing that doesn't make a big difference on reads. We may try it i the future though.
Very good comparison. Just received my Garmin but have not been able to test it due to the weather. Good to see it is pretty solid when it comes to carry, club speed and launch angle which are some of the key reasons I picked up this device. Would still like it to have better spin numbers and for sure more accurate club path accuracy as I want to be more consistent in that area and work on moving the ball but overall for the $600 it's relatively good news. Hopefully the folks at Garmin will continue to try and improve on the results. The unit did get a few current updates when I plugged it in so we'll see. Good job on the review.
Glad I canceled my pre order, will wait on Bushnell Launch Pro and Full Swing Kit at this stage. Buy once buy right I think I’d regret buying this. Thanks for the videos Subbed.
@@juancr3550 I didn’t compare them just don’t want to spend $500 on something that’s inaccurate. Hopefully they can fix it with software updates. And it might be ok for driving range but I want more of a golf sim.
I think the launch pro is going to be the most impactful product in a long time. I think my Mevo+ is so solid, but the idea of a reasonably priced three camera foresight based monitor is going to be very tempting. The big issue I think will be software costs compared to the Mevo+.
It seems like the quad is still the top tier fitting monitor, but the Garmin seems like a solid option for somebody who just wants a home simulator and not a swing fix diagnosis tool. I was fitted for my driver on a GCquad and it was absolutely spot on in highlighting where my misses come from, but if anything close comes out under 5k I may have to ask my coach to make house calls.
Appreciate your feedback. We probably won't do that, as our purpose in this test was to show the R10 against the world's most accurate indoor LM (the GCQuad). Unless you're talking about SkyTrak vs GCQuad, in which case, yes, we need to do that test. :)
@@gunghogolf A three way would be great. I think the Skytrak and Quad can co-exist. If necessary you can place the Skytrak in lefty mode and hit over it.
I believe the updates to the Garmin software may provide different results, you also need to compare the visual flight path tracers. this 6 months old.
Good video, like the comparison. Thanks for taking the time to do it. I do disagree with your assessment when several times you said the L swing pat indicated a huge over the top move. I take the l to indicate a l to r or in to out club path but I could be wrong. That of course does not account for the big difference between the two devices but sure that it can be fined tuned with a change in algorithm.
Thanks for your feedback. A "L" swing path in Garmin's interface (and all other LMs that we've used) means the path is moving to the left as you're looking down the target line, behind the ball, to the target - so it's another way of saying Out-to-In for a right-handed golfer.
Very informative. I got my R10 yesterday and gave it a good workout too. Unfortunately, don't have a GC-Quad for comparison! I wonder why the club path figures were so off during your tests? My unit, used outdoors into a net with about 8' between the R-10 and the ball and 10' to the net gave much more rational club path figures. It'll be interesting to see other comparisons to see if others with high-end launch monitors have the same issues that you did.
@@gunghogolf just watching and I noticed that the garmin didn't pick up the second chip shot as the data is exactly the same as with the first one. So maybe even setting up where both screens would be visible at the same time would be better. But thanks for this video nevertheless. I will probably buy one when it comes out.
I was thinking of buying one, as it does club data and i'm trying to get a more neutral path. Looks like i'm going to give it a miss until there are a few software updates or wait to see what you think of the the FS Kit LM.
Could the off data be do to the set up of the R10. The club path data, while off, was consistent. Being 6-8 feet away leaves degrees of open for error. Looking at the other data I’d question if re-positioning the R10 might make it more accurate. That said I realize most people want it super accurate out of the box.but for $599 it’s still a hell of a bargain.
Thanks for watching! Setup of the R10 was to spec and accurate, as indicated by the horizontal launch angle reads nearly perfectly matching on all shots.
The little mat that the R10 is on appears to be lower than the mat the ball is being hit from. Looks to be at least a half inch maybe more. I now its flat, but should it not be the same height as the mat the ball is on?
What do we think about the fact that in your outdoor trackman video it looked like the club face and path were pretty close with the driver and went the garbage when switched to the irons? Could it have something to do with the designs of the irons compared to the driver??
@@vanq86 sounds about right, doing a project in radar technology were we made a module similar to r10. Have the same problems due to shape/material and their reflectibility.
Hey guys, thanks for the video. Would adding the metallic dot stickers that are used for trackman/mevo help the R10 with determining spin axis or backspin possibly? Cheers
Apparently not, as these two parameters are calculated rather than measured. I thought the same thing as u, but this was pointed out to me. Would still like to see though, just in case.
Thinking the consistent swing path errors to the left suggests the Garmin may have not been exactly 90* to the aim line , or parallel to the screen. Probably quite difficult to get exact.
Pretty sure the garmin has trouble when facing a projected screen, as that lighting affects the thermal readings of the garmin. Would love to see these reads with the projector off.
Radar units like the Garmin have no problem with projection screens - that's one of their primary uses. Radar isn't thermal, and isn't affect by any light conditions.
That could be a case of the projector fan being "in view" of the radar unit (perhaps a very short throw projector near the screen), and causing mechanical interference.
Thanks for the suggestion! We hope to do that in the near future. We've done a lot of testing Mevo+ privately, and it's far more accurate than the R10.
your club data was off to the left because the unit was not properly aligned. It still gave good data otherwise. I have heard great things about this unit, keeping in mind the spin is estimated due to the machine not being able to read spin data.
I've got a Mevo and the club/ball speed are excellent as far as I can tell. It doesn't seem like the R10 improves much as the L/R data isn't accurate. Hopefully they come out with an R10+ (a version that competes with the Mevo +)
Great unbiased review, guys. Hoping Garmin are able to get the side spin corrected, but not sure if calculations will ever make up for it not being measured. Looking forward to seeing the Bushnell LaunchPro. Will you guys be getting one of those in when they become available?
Thanks for your comment. We're a Bushnell dealer and will have the Launch Pro in stock as soon as they're released, and will do similar tests. High hopes for it.
@@juancr3550 when the tracking of the face on impact is improved maybe we can talk about it. At the moment I think it's somewhere in between. Very interesting to detect the direction after the impact with good reliability at this price (IMO)
@@cristianlorenzin1005 I think mevo + doesn’t give any club measurement besides speed and AoA. So Garmin has this as a extra. Hope this can be improved by software and not hardware.
Do you think there is any way Garmin could tweak their calculations for spin axis/club path? I.E. is there any hope in improvement through firmware updates, or do you think it will remain the way it is? Any clue what could be causing the miss? Also look at that driver club head speed on the Garmin first ball (151mph). Another very bad read.
It should be possible for Garmin to tweak software/firmware for better spin axis and club path reads - fingers crossed. Nice catch on the club speed of 151 - Charlie's fast but not that fast.
Thanks for the suggestion! We hope to do that in the near future. We've done a lot of testing of the SkyTrak (and Mevo+) privately, and those two units are far more accurate than the R10.
So, based on the videos I've seen comparing to GC or Trackman, the R10 is consistently missing in the same areas in the same directions. Most of those are calculations, right? Makes me feel like they could dial that out in software updates since I believe those are all algorithms.
Any ideas if the lighting/shadows can cause issues with reading the ball? Also i have noticed with my R10 that some balls (quality/texture) it will not pick up. Wind also affects the ball, i had a ground fan blowing on me and the Garmin would just flicker red to green quickly.
Lighting/shadows will have no effect with the R10 - it doesn't have a camera, and radar works the same in sunlight or complete darkness. A fan will definitely affect radar - it's a moving metal object.
They will be able to tweak a lot of things via software and firmware. FlightScope did the same with the Mevo+ for several months after its release 18 months ago.
My guess is the spin data is from ball flight, the path data is from club data. the sw doesn't cross reference and filter. there is significant room for improvement here just in software and algorithm. which you would expect from a 1st gen product.
Thanks for the feedback. FYI, you can infer the shot shape from the launch direction, spin axis, and total offline numbers I call out in this video - to a much more accurate degree than just looking at a 3D shot shape animation.
Please show the shot shape on the Garmin, there is 0 reason not to show it. Show us you're reading it right or that garmin is displaying the correct numbers which match its flight.
I have a GCQ and R10. Shot shape into a indoor net is pretty good 70% of the time. The other 30% is pretty wrong. Maybe fixable with firmware. But I wouldn’t want to tune up a swing with this
@@gunghogolf yes I understand this but I think from a Layman’s perspective who will be purchasing this, it would be nice to see it opposed to having to interpret it.
@@zackfuerth9730 There will be more reviews showing it, but obviously if the spin axis are in opposite directions, shot shape is also opposite. As I posted above, each degree of spin axis will give you ball curvature of roughly 1.2% of carry distance.
Into a net outdoors vs into a projection screen indoors makes no difference to a radar unit, assuming the ball flight distance is the same. So would expect similar results.
Anders (above) is correct. We've tried using a metallic sticker on the ball with the R10, and it makes no difference in accuracy. Tpix balls won't make a difference with either the R10 or Quad.
Don’t both use Doppler radar? So wouldn’t they be affecting each other? If so, then why not take the average of your 7 iron of both and compare them then
The GCQuad is a camera-based system, so the two should not affect each other in any way. Even when comparing the R10 to the TrackMan 4 (from our other video), they use different radar frequencies and don't appear to affect each other in any way.
@@qwaszx2 Sorry, was thinking this was our R10 vs TrackMan 4 video when replying to your comment. You're absolutely correct that the Quad is 4 cameras only.
@@jbwise2002 Anyone who plays sim golf chips regularly, and the R10 is marketed for sim golf (comes with E6 Connect). It’s a real problem in that use case.
@@gunghogolf Why do radar models improve their ability to read more accurately outdoors if it's not lighting dependent? Is it because indoors the radar is bouncing off of walls, ceiling, etc?
R10 spin axis error is a result of its club path inaccuracy. R10 doesn't know face angle at impact. It is calculated from club path and L/R launch angle.
The spin axis (which we noted after every shot) is what causes the ball to curve left or right, and that's currently the weakest data point that the R10 reads - often it is off in magnitude and/or direction.
I want to know how it does on distance, end result of ball (left/right), and shot shape. especially for an average golfer hitting slices, hooks, etc and average golfer distances/club speeds. I think you're focusing too much on some of the details vs how the average player is going to want to use this to see how they hit into a net at home.
Thanks for your feedback, John. We call out the spin axis, launch direction, and total offline (left/right) for nearly every shot in this video - from which shot shape can be inferred. It's hard to strike a balance between keeping things simple, and showing full data, and in this review we wanted to provide as much shot data as possible.
@@gunghogolf thanks for the details it's understandable, and it is appreciated. would love to just see an average joe showing the basics compared to GC4 sometime soon though!
Spin axis will give you the shot shape. Each degree will give you ball curvature of roughly 1.2% of carry distance. So 5 degrees negative spin axis will move a 200 yard 4 iron 12 yards left. The irony is that the unit will perform worse for high handicap golfers due to high number of off center hits. The good news/bad news (depending on perspective) is that they will never know it when using the R10.
Thanks for watching! The Quad doesn't affect our TrackMan reads indoors, and we did a repeat test (no video) against the Uneekor EYE XO on the ceiling and got similar problems with club path and spin axis reads.
Appreciate your time making this video. I am aware of the price point and am looking at this for basic carry distances to practice at home with a net. Had the Rapsodo but iphone only and poor net mode function had me looking at this one. Do you think the distances and basic ball path are ok for the R10? Also - dos the R10 have a shot tracer so you can see your shots (like the Rapsodo)?
Carry distances are spot-on with the R10. Ball curvature can vary wildly from reality, as it currently has difficulty with spin axis. Yes, there is a shot tracer view in the app.
Yes, that's my biggest concern with sim golf with the unit. Fingers crossed they get that solved. Their current tech support response for it is "try using a faster backswing" on those chips - something about the club speed needing to be more different than the ball speed. But that's tough to do with a short chip.
This is very interesting! Thank you! I wonder why shot deviation seems to be fairly similar despite some far off spin and path numbers. Still, for being pretty darn close maybe 75-90% of the time(?) seems like a good value for casual golfer Also, I know on garmin forum they recommend nothing reflective in an 8ft radius, could the GC quad be reflecting back and messing with some numbers as it generally is in line with the club head angle as it comes toward the ball in downswing
Thanks for your feedback and suggestion, Brian. Other radar units like the Mevo+ and TrackMan aren't affected by a stationary reflective object near the ball, but perhaps the R10 is. We'll do some testing up against the Uneekor EYE XO (ceiling mounted) to see if results are better.
Brian, we just tested against the Uneekor EYE XO (ceiling mounted) and got similar significant discrepancies on total spin, spin axis, and club path, so can safely say that the GCQuad was most likely not a problem in this test.
I wonder if you shifted the garmins face to the right/(away from the golfer) if that would fix the club direction pathing glitch and the finishing of the ball on a truer line 🤔
Let’s be honest if I want to see spin and carry with chip shots, I want to see what the ball actually does on the green. I wouldn’t use a monitor for that. Js
Agree that almost nobody is going to practice chipping with the R10, indoors or out. But it's being marketed as sim-golf compatible, which means users are going to be trying to play E6 Connect sim golf with it, where you absolutely need to make short chips regularly. So it's important they get it to read them, and I'm hopeful they will.
Hi, it would be of great help to me to know if the acquisition of the horizontal and vertical lauch direction remains good with the sponge balls. Could you compare the two systems?
Could you possibly do a video of playing a simulated hole with both simulators at the same time? In other words, the same course, same hole, both launch monitors at the same time. Thanks.
Thanks for the review! I set up my R10 in my back yard 6+ feet behind the ball, hitting into a net about 8 feet in front of the ball. My main goal is to get accurate distances, direction and shot shape. My biggest problem is aligning the R10 to directly aim at the target line. Eyeballing the 1/2 inch long red line on top is not much to work with. The horizontal launch angle and shot shape seem to be directly affected by the alignment of the R10. Without another LM to compare it to, I have to rotate the R10 left or right based on how the direction and shape of my shot "feels." There also appears to be a fade bias. I often hit irons on the course with a baby draw, and this shot shape has never shown up with the R10. Do you have any suggestions on how to accurately align the R10? And how critical do you think the alignment is to measured performance? Thanks for your feedback.
To align the R10, use steps similar to this guide for the SkyTrak (chipping shots at a center target line in your net - hang a ribbon or something to indicate center): gunghogolf.com/articles/how-to-align-your-skytrak
If I recall correctly, the spin is calculated, not measured. So, it isn't really "reading" anything in regards to spin. (I'm at the start of the PW) So, far, the distance and where the ball is ending up is really impressive, while the readings on the spin and club path seem off. So, as a simulator, it looks like a good deal except for those really short chips. Maybe Garmin can adjust the algorithm on spin later for better numbers. (Added later in video: Some of the misreads on L/R are a little worrying. I wonder how it (the R10) is coming to that conclusion. I trust the GC Quad's numbers (I wish I had the money to get one! ha), so it makes me question the Garmin's algorithm can be completely trusted. If they use the same algorithm in their upcoming optical system, I wonder how it will do. For the price..... really (updated to "pretty") impressive. Thanks for the video!
Thanks for your feedback, James. The L/R misreads are just the result of getting the spin axis wrong - nothing's wrong with their ball flight model, but get the axis wrong, and you'll have big misses on where the ball ends up.
I believe it tries to work out the spin axis from club path and from lateral ball movement during flight ... which explains why it performed better outdoors. Gung-ho had 11 feet of flight, which is more than most home users will muster, so an indoor best case scenario at this point in product maturity.
@@morini05 good info. Thanks. Yeah, I’m guessing I’ll keep saving for a SkyTrak or wait to see how the optical Garmin one that is coming “soon” turns out on price and performance.
For the price basic distance speed and a shot tracer is all the Garmin is really for… no way spin is gonna be the data you want of this…. Thanks for the video
We're pre-selling against a batch due to arrive in about 3 weeks. If the first batch was an indication, this batch will sell out well in advance of them arriving to us.
I appreciate a good snarky response as much as the next guy - but do you have a better idea of how to figure out how accurate the R10 is, other than testing it against a known-accurate launch monitor?
I get the humor defense mechanism, but the value of these devices comes from the job they are expected to perform for you which exactly the same. The job of a Ferrari is completely different than a smart car. The takeaway you should be getting since we all know the price difference is if you are looking to get better by purchasing the garmin…it will only really be giving you decent distance values to help you, everything else is likely so far off you shouldn’t use it to “help” you because you might think you are slicing when you’re not etc. I also know that Garmin calculates some of the data which can improve with software updates so that could help.
Why does his CHS change so much between the shots? He ranges from 107-119 and ball speeds from 154-174. Never seen anyone like that. I know GCquad doesn't lie so must be his technique.
Agree, as long as they can solve the short chipping no-read problem, which could be very frustrating playing sim golf. Worst case, it could be that you could never get your ball on the green for auto-putting to kick in.
Completely agree, I’ve got mine and it does seem to be ‘fade biased’ which I’m hoping can be resolved with the maturity of the software, but people’s expectations seem to be *so* inflated given the price
@@markedwards6807 yeah that is a concern - if you hit a pull and it registers a fade. Hard to trust. But like you said some peoples expectations are ridiculous for the price
@@gunghogolf Several other reviewers on RUclips have chipped with the Garmin without any problems. Maybe you need to update the firmware or change the head angle of the device.
This is where I question setup, I think a laser setup would take all question out of human setup error vs machine. Great review don’t get me wrong but I have seen some with GCQuad close and others not. A builders laser line setup is only way to be sure.
Got my r10 today. After watching this video, i’m gonna return it for sure. The numbers are way to much off. Its not gonna be possible to play the 42000 courses anyway with so many misreads. Great video!
Hmm…I’m struggling with this. The concept is a great one…all that data in a small package at a reasonable price. But, as they say, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Having all the additional club data is great and what I’m looking for more than the ball data (I can see my ball flight, can’t see exactly what my club is doing). Unfortunately, the club data is pretty much useless. Club path, AoA, FTP are all way off on the R10 to the point of looking like a guess. In other words, you can’t rely on it for anything. Wonder if the GC Quad is interfering with the radar from the R10. Would be nice if you guys shut off the GC Quad and test the R10 alone for the club data. You already know what the numbers should look like given his swing, which is pretty consistent on AoA, FTP, and path…Unless they get that fixed, from what you guys stated as the plusses, you can get a PRGR for less than half the price that gives very accurate swing speed, ball speed, carry distance, and smash factor…it’ll also read swing speed for practice swings!
We recently tested the R10 up against our Uneekor EYE XO (ceiling mounted, so no chance of interference), and got similar results. Radar units don't see any light, so the cameras and IR flashes of either the Quad or the EYE XO won't interfere. The only chance of interference with the Quad is static object reflections (which typically don't matter - we test the Quad up against our TM4 radar unit regularly and they're spot-on with each other.
@@gunghogolf Yikes! Then, not sure why someone would buy the R10 if they are looking for accurate club data…it’s not even worth Garmin wasting their time putting in on the device if the numbers are that out of whack with reality…shocking that Garmin would do that, unless they are taking a page out of the Elon Musk book and instead of paying for QA folks at Garmin, just sell the equipment to the public and let them be the guinea pigs and then sent firmware/software updates as needed…great concept and probably saves them money, but having been a Tesla guinea pig for the past two years, I’m done with that…too exhausting.
I was so excited for the R10 to come out but the more reviews I watch the less excited I get. 800-900rpms difference in spin isn’t a good read, thats a massive difference. Especially when you get into the driver
your garmin was aiming too high up.. lower its face and it would read better... its reading the club path AFTER contact not at contact because it cant see it until its higher up due to it being too tilted
The Garmin was set up properly. There is no angle adjustment on its tripod, so if the tripod is on a flat surface (it was), then it's at the right angle. It will not allow you to hit shots if it detects the angle being wrong.
@@gunghogolf I was wondering same thing when I used mine.Since you have something to compare it to, cud u compare it with both front legs raised a bit and then with the rear leg raised a bit. Mevo+ needs a particular angle and we just got a mass produced tripod than may or may not be within spec. I did notice difference in launch angle when I had the bottom of tripod built up level with mat, and with the R10 box only slight above level of mat. My swing is not consistent enuf to compare shots, but with the quad to compare it to, it might show a difference.
I think that its too far away for the garmin and its strugglig to pick up those short shots because its so far away and the angle that its facing is too high so the shot is below its radar and so it doesn;t pick it up and they cant get lower than 8 yads possible like the low shots its too low for the garmin.
I got the R10 last week and my device picks up the club path pretty close to reality and i record my swings on video so i can validate the reads… im using it outdoors on a net… maybe you had some problems with alignment? or just bad luck with the devive
Thanks guys I would call this a total fail for the Garmin...yes can't expect same performance as $20k unit, but at some point of difference, it is not worth buying at any price. Spin, attack angle and path are massive stats for driver and given the discrepancies are not only too great, but also not consistent.
I own a Garmin TruSwing and while it was pretty good for swing speed, all the other data, especially swing path and angles, were absolute trash. It seems that the R10 has not gotten any better. So at best, you can use it for carry with a grain of salt. I will pass on this product and just borrow one from someone on a weekend to try it for a bit of calibration.
i obviously cant afford something gc quad. i wish this garmin is mostly accurate on the direction and the distance. those two are onlythings i care about.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I really appreciate you guys taking the time to make these videos. For me, the appeal to the R10 is all the additional statistics provided over their competition. When considering the $500 Mevo or Rapsodo an additional $100 for a better unit is worth it. But I did have concerns regarding the accuracy of these additional stats. In my opinion bad data is worse than no data. So after watching the R10 vs TrackMan vs GCQuad videos, I think Garmin has a some work to do in order to make this a worth the extra $100 and live up to the advertisements.
Thanks for your feedback, Stephen!
I agree with this assessment as well. I would much rather have the SC300i or the Mevo than this unit. I'm hoping they come out with some updates for this unit soon.
I agree, but you also have to consider that a lot of these numbers that they are missing big are calculated, meaning that they are going to improve. A little unlucky for the garmin because they’re getting all these reviews early while overtime it will improve a lot.
luckily its all fixable with software updates, at the end of the day its all just mathematical calculations
Thx a lot! Got the r10 myself and discovered some misreadings myself on the range especially with angle of attack hitting down like hitting down 7-9 degrees with driver 😂 and some times the readings doesn’t match up with real ballflight. Hope Garmin takes care with the software
this review is solid gold. thanks for doing it.
R10 seems to have some very serious accuracy issues indoors. carry looks ok for pitches but all the other data looks to be complete garbage. to be able to still get the carry reasonably close for irons means that carry calculation is only using clubhead speed, ball speed and launch angle (and Garmin seems ok here). everything else though seems to be calculated separately and not factored into the carry distance (fortunately!).
my concern is with all this extra data being reported despite being complete and obvious nonsense for example at 9:44 with huge club path and face angle numbers but 0yd horizontal deviation--things like this should not even be allowed to be displayed by software. it is very alarming because it goes to show there was very little validation done by Garmin's engineering/testing/software team.
Thanks for watching - very good insights.
Thank you for the time you put in to do these comparison. Looks like Garmin still has a lot of kinks that needs to be worked out of.
Thanks for watching, Joe! Hopeful that Garmin will improve things via future firmware or software updates, similar to what FlightScope did in the early days of the Mevo+.
Great video! Thanks for taking the time to share!
Deviations seemed to be fairly consistent. My thoughts are that maybe you can calibrate the two devices simultaneously by changing the alignment/distance of the Garmin so the path, direction and whatever else can be zeroed in to match the GC4. Once that is done, maybe you will see a slight difference in the device location for the Garmin and more consistent reads? Basically make sure the Garmin is aligned in the most consistent location to match the data for the GC4 before testing.
Thanks for your feedback. The alignment with the Quad was perfect, as there was very little difference between horizontal launch angle reads. So the only other adjustment we could make would be ball-to-R10 distance. We used the recommended 6 ft, and if it's like other radar units, changing that doesn't make a big difference on reads. We may try it i the future though.
Very good comparison. Just received my Garmin but have not been able to test it due to the weather. Good to see it is pretty solid when it comes to carry, club speed and launch angle which are some of the key reasons I picked up this device. Would still like it to have better spin numbers and for sure more accurate club path accuracy as I want to be more consistent in that area and work on moving the ball but overall for the $600 it's relatively good news. Hopefully the folks at Garmin will continue to try and improve on the results. The unit did get a few current updates when I plugged it in so we'll see. Good job on the review.
Thanks for your comment, Alan!
Would love to see an overlay of the GC and R10 shot locations for each hit/club to see how much variance there really is.
Would be cool to see the simulated ball flight on both systems.
Glad I canceled my pre order, will wait on Bushnell Launch Pro and Full Swing Kit at this stage. Buy once buy right I think I’d regret buying this. Thanks for the videos Subbed.
Thanks for the comment!
Those are >3000usd units no comparison
@@juancr3550 I didn’t compare them just don’t want to spend $500 on something that’s inaccurate. Hopefully they can fix it with software updates. And it might be ok for driving range but I want more of a golf sim.
Cancelled my pre order too, couldn’t trust those numbers it’s like lottery golf. Will look at one of their watches instead. Thanks for the review
Can’t wait for the Launch Pro comparisons when it comes out.
Can't wait to get our allocation! We'll get a review of it out asap.
I think the launch pro is going to be the most impactful product in a long time. I think my Mevo+ is so solid, but the idea of a reasonably priced three camera foresight based monitor is going to be very tempting. The big issue I think will be software costs compared to the Mevo+.
But how much are we expecting it to be? Including software cost
It seems like the quad is still the top tier fitting monitor, but the Garmin seems like a solid option for somebody who just wants a home simulator and not a swing fix diagnosis tool. I was fitted for my driver on a GCquad and it was absolutely spot on in highlighting where my misses come from, but if anything close comes out under 5k I may have to ask my coach to make house calls.
Thanks for this! An indoor comparision with the SkyTrak would be interesting.
Appreciate your feedback. We probably won't do that, as our purpose in this test was to show the R10 against the world's most accurate indoor LM (the GCQuad). Unless you're talking about SkyTrak vs GCQuad, in which case, yes, we need to do that test. :)
@@gunghogolf A three way would be great. I think the Skytrak and Quad can co-exist. If necessary you can place the Skytrak in lefty mode and hit over it.
@@gunghogolf Yes, if you do the SkyTrak vs GCQuad test, you kind of also do the SkyTrak vs R10 test..
Yes, they can co-exist from the same side - we've tested some that way.
@@gunghogolf I think Charlie now is ready & eager to to the SkyTrak vs GCQuad test..
I believe the updates to the Garmin software may provide different results, you also need to compare the visual flight path tracers. this 6 months old.
Good video, like the comparison. Thanks for taking the time to do it. I do disagree with your assessment when several times you said the L swing pat indicated a huge over the top move. I take the l to indicate a l to r or in to out club path but I could be wrong. That of course does not account for the big difference between the two devices but sure that it can be fined tuned with a change in algorithm.
Thanks for your feedback. A "L" swing path in Garmin's interface (and all other LMs that we've used) means the path is moving to the left as you're looking down the target line, behind the ball, to the target - so it's another way of saying Out-to-In for a right-handed golfer.
Very informative. I got my R10 yesterday and gave it a good workout too. Unfortunately, don't have a GC-Quad for comparison! I wonder why the club path figures were so off during your tests? My unit, used outdoors into a net with about 8' between the R-10 and the ball and 10' to the net gave much more rational club path figures. It'll be interesting to see other comparisons to see if others with high-end launch monitors have the same issues that you did.
The R10 seems for some reason to be more accurate outside on a driving range compared to shooting golf balls into a net/wall indoors.
With the data all being so consistently left, I was wondering if the unit was slightly off center.
GREAT vid gents - thank you!
Our pleasure!
Have you tried the new RCT balls with the Garmin R10
Can we get a side-by-side chart? It's hard to follow when you're panning the camera around
Thanks for your feedback, Zach. Unfortunately, the R10 does not (yet) allow data export, so we can't easily produce a spreadsheet of all the numbers.
@@gunghogolf just watching and I noticed that the garmin didn't pick up the second chip shot as the data is exactly the same as with the first one. So maybe even setting up where both screens would be visible at the same time would be better. But thanks for this video nevertheless. I will probably buy one when it comes out.
Have you considered doing a new comparison? I'm thinking Garmin will be updating their firmware and improve.
Yes, we need to do that. Appreciate your feedback!
I was thinking of buying one, as it does club data and i'm trying to get a more neutral path. Looks like i'm going to give it a miss until there are a few software updates or wait to see what you think of the the FS Kit LM.
Thanks for watching!
Could the off data be do to the set up of the R10. The club path data, while off, was consistent. Being 6-8 feet away leaves degrees of open for error. Looking at the other data I’d question if re-positioning the R10 might make it more accurate. That said I realize most people want it super accurate out of the box.but for $599 it’s still a hell of a bargain.
Thanks for watching! Setup of the R10 was to spec and accurate, as indicated by the horizontal launch angle reads nearly perfectly matching on all shots.
can u just hit foam balls and apple tv mirror screen it to a big screen tv?
No to the foam ball question, yes to the apple TV mirroring (just like any iOS app).
I've been seeing the same issue with club path 5-10 degrees too much out to in. Let's hope the next device update fixes this.
Thanks for the info, David, and strongly agree with you.
The little mat that the R10 is on appears to be lower than the mat the ball is being hit from. Looks to be at least a half inch maybe more. I now its flat, but should it not be the same height as the mat the ball is on?
The two mats are identical height. Thanks for watching!
What do we think about the fact that in your outdoor trackman video it looked like the club face and path were pretty close with the driver and went the garbage when switched to the irons? Could it have something to do with the designs of the irons compared to the driver??
@@vanq86 sounds about right, doing a project in radar technology were we made a module similar to r10. Have the same problems due to shape/material and their reflectibility.
Hey guys, thanks for the video. Would adding the metallic dot stickers that are used for trackman/mevo help the R10 with determining spin axis or backspin possibly? Cheers
Apparently not, as these two parameters are calculated rather than measured. I thought the same thing as u, but this was pointed out to me. Would still like to see though, just in case.
We've tested the R10 with metallic stickers - didn't make a difference.
Since the club path was consistently more out to in on the R10 maybe it has to do with
the way the device was aligned?
Thanks for your feedback! Alignment was perfect, as indicated by nearly exact results for horizontal launch angle from both units.
@@gunghogolf Thanks! This makes perfect sense.
Got my garmin this week. Canceled my monthly membership to driving range. It is awesome.
Thinking the consistent swing path errors to the left suggests the Garmin may have not been exactly 90* to the aim line , or parallel to the screen. Probably quite difficult to get exact.
The horizontal launch angle reads of both units were within 0.1 degrees on each shot - the R10 was in perfect alignment.
Pretty sure the garmin has trouble when facing a projected screen, as that lighting affects the thermal readings of the garmin. Would love to see these reads with the projector off.
Radar units like the Garmin have no problem with projection screens - that's one of their primary uses. Radar isn't thermal, and isn't affect by any light conditions.
@@gunghogolf I figured, but I previously viewed a video where turning the projector screen off gave more accurate results
That could be a case of the projector fan being "in view" of the radar unit (perhaps a very short throw projector near the screen), and causing mechanical interference.
How about a comparison of the Tittle X against GC Quad?
Could the club path issue be an alignment issue with the Garmin to the ball path?
No, unfortunately. We had the alignment of it perfect, as evidenced by the spot-on horizontal launch angle reads on every shot.
interesting stuff guys thanks for the video and thanks for TGC freaking loving it.
Our pleasure!
Could you do a comparison like this with mevo plus vs quad inside and outside?
Thanks for the suggestion! We hope to do that in the near future. We've done a lot of testing Mevo+ privately, and it's far more accurate than the R10.
I assume if you lower the R10's height or standing angle, it might not miss short chippings.
your club data was off to the left because the unit was not properly aligned. It still gave good data otherwise. I have heard great things about this unit, keeping in mind the spin is estimated due to the machine not being able to read spin data.
Why assume it’s an over read from the Garmin and not an under read on the GCQuad?
The GCQuad is highly respected for accuracy and proven over time. It's the gold standard for indoor launch monitors.
I've got a Mevo and the club/ball speed are excellent as far as I can tell. It doesn't seem like the R10 improves much as the L/R data isn't accurate. Hopefully they come out with an R10+ (a version that competes with the Mevo +)
Thanks for sharing!
Great unbiased review, guys. Hoping Garmin are able to get the side spin corrected, but not sure if calculations will ever make up for it not being measured. Looking forward to seeing the Bushnell LaunchPro. Will you guys be getting one of those in when they become available?
Thanks for your comment. We're a Bushnell dealer and will have the Launch Pro in stock as soon as they're released, and will do similar tests. High hopes for it.
@@gunghogolf Any idea roughly when it will come out and roughly how much it will be?
October-ish. Can't share the MSRP yet, sorry.
Don't you think that the differences noted could be due to interference between the two doppler systems?
The GCQuad is camera-based, and the R10 is doppler radar. We would not expect any interference between the two.
Hello. R10 versus mevo+ could be interesting. Will you take the test?
We may do that, thanks for the suggestion!
It is the closest competitor
@@juancr3550 when the tracking of the face on impact is improved maybe we can talk about it. At the moment I think it's somewhere in between. Very interesting to detect the direction after the impact with good reliability at this price (IMO)
@@cristianlorenzin1005 I think mevo + doesn’t give any club measurement besides speed and AoA. So Garmin has this as a extra. Hope this can be improved by software and not hardware.
@@juancr3550 as long as it is consistent, you are right! Fingers crossed
Do you think there is any way Garmin could tweak their calculations for spin axis/club path? I.E. is there any hope in improvement through firmware updates, or do you think it will remain the way it is? Any clue what could be causing the miss?
Also look at that driver club head speed on the Garmin first ball (151mph). Another very bad read.
It should be possible for Garmin to tweak software/firmware for better spin axis and club path reads - fingers crossed. Nice catch on the club speed of 151 - Charlie's fast but not that fast.
Can you do a similar comparison for the Skytrak?
Thanks for the suggestion! We hope to do that in the near future. We've done a lot of testing of the SkyTrak (and Mevo+) privately, and those two units are far more accurate than the R10.
So, based on the videos I've seen comparing to GC or Trackman, the R10 is consistently missing in the same areas in the same directions.
Most of those are calculations, right? Makes me feel like they could dial that out in software updates since I believe those are all algorithms.
Any ideas if the lighting/shadows can cause issues with reading the ball? Also i have noticed with my R10 that some balls (quality/texture) it will not pick up. Wind also affects the ball, i had a ground fan blowing on me and the Garmin would just flicker red to green quickly.
Lighting/shadows will have no effect with the R10 - it doesn't have a camera, and radar works the same in sunlight or complete darkness. A fan will definitely affect radar - it's a moving metal object.
The Garmin website recommends no fans
Do you know how much of this can be fine tuned with software from Garmin and what is more difficult to fix sinxe it's hardware?
They will be able to tweak a lot of things via software and firmware. FlightScope did the same with the Mevo+ for several months after its release 18 months ago.
My guess is the spin data is from ball flight, the path data is from club data. the sw doesn't cross reference and filter. there is significant room for improvement here just in software and algorithm. which you would expect from a 1st gen product.
Thanks Mark, I tend to agree with you but no way to know for sure.
Garmin says to have the R10 between 6-8ft behind the ball. What distance did you guys use?
We used 6 ft
hi can I connect E6 with old verson of ipad like ipad1 or ipad2?
Could you show shot shape comparison for the next. I think that’s the selling factor of the Garmin over day the VoiceCaddie
Thanks for the feedback. FYI, you can infer the shot shape from the launch direction, spin axis, and total offline numbers I call out in this video - to a much more accurate degree than just looking at a 3D shot shape animation.
Please show the shot shape on the Garmin, there is 0 reason not to show it. Show us you're reading it right or that garmin is displaying the correct numbers which match its flight.
I have a GCQ and R10. Shot shape into a indoor net is pretty good 70% of the time. The other 30% is pretty wrong. Maybe fixable with firmware. But I wouldn’t want to tune up a swing with this
@@gunghogolf yes I understand this but I think from a Layman’s perspective who will be purchasing this, it would be nice to see it opposed to having to interpret it.
@@zackfuerth9730 There will be more reviews showing it, but obviously if the spin axis are in opposite directions, shot shape is also opposite. As I posted above, each degree of spin axis will give you ball curvature of roughly 1.2% of carry distance.
What about outdoors into a net? Do you think the R10 would be more accurate in that setting? More comparable to your trackman v r10 video?
Into a net outdoors vs into a projection screen indoors makes no difference to a radar unit, assuming the ball flight distance is the same. So would expect similar results.
Question would spin be better if you used a tp5 pix ball kinda like how mevo+ needed the dots on the ball?
no, not optical so unit can't see ball markings. Furthermore, it does not measure spin, so even metallic dots won't help.
Anders (above) is correct. We've tried using a metallic sticker on the ball with the R10, and it makes no difference in accuracy. Tpix balls won't make a difference with either the R10 or Quad.
Don’t both use Doppler radar? So wouldn’t they be affecting each other? If so, then why not take the average of your 7 iron of both and compare them then
The GCQuad is a camera-based system, so the two should not affect each other in any way. Even when comparing the R10 to the TrackMan 4 (from our other video), they use different radar frequencies and don't appear to affect each other in any way.
@@qwaszx2 Sorry, was thinking this was our R10 vs TrackMan 4 video when replying to your comment. You're absolutely correct that the Quad is 4 cameras only.
I'm looking into buying one of these when its in stock again. Could lighting affect those short 3-9 yard chips not reading?
Lighting has no effect on a radar-based unit like the Garmin R10. It has no cameras, and will work in direct sun or complete darkness.
@@gunghogolf Ah. Thanks.
I think those really short shots are not really a problem as i rarely see anyone use launch monitors for shots under 20 yards.
@@jbwise2002 Anyone who plays sim golf chips regularly, and the R10 is marketed for sim golf (comes with E6 Connect). It’s a real problem in that use case.
@@gunghogolf Why do radar models improve their ability to read more accurately outdoors if it's not lighting dependent? Is it because indoors the radar is bouncing off of walls, ceiling, etc?
R10 spin axis error is a result of its club path inaccuracy. R10 doesn't know face angle at impact. It is calculated from club path and L/R launch angle.
Great comparison. Do you think sticking metallic dots on the ball would improve the spin access error issue?
Nope, we've tried that and it doesn't make any difference.
Can you connect the Garmin to the projector?
Not directly. Only way is to connect the iOS or Android device to a projector, with HDMI adapter or something like AirPlay.
One thing I’m curious about aside from the numbers, how does the ball flight compare on the garmin to the quad?
The spin axis (which we noted after every shot) is what causes the ball to curve left or right, and that's currently the weakest data point that the R10 reads - often it is off in magnitude and/or direction.
I want to know how it does on distance, end result of ball (left/right), and shot shape. especially for an average golfer hitting slices, hooks, etc and average golfer distances/club speeds. I think you're focusing too much on some of the details vs how the average player is going to want to use this to see how they hit into a net at home.
Thanks for your feedback, John. We call out the spin axis, launch direction, and total offline (left/right) for nearly every shot in this video - from which shot shape can be inferred. It's hard to strike a balance between keeping things simple, and showing full data, and in this review we wanted to provide as much shot data as possible.
@@gunghogolf thanks for the details it's understandable, and it is appreciated. would love to just see an average joe showing the basics compared to GC4 sometime soon though!
Spin axis will give you the shot shape. Each degree will give you ball curvature of roughly 1.2% of carry distance. So 5 degrees negative spin axis will move a 200 yard 4 iron 12 yards left. The irony is that the unit will perform worse for high handicap golfers due to high number of off center hits. The good news/bad news (depending on perspective) is that they will never know it when using the R10.
@@morini05 Use it at the driving range and you will see shot shape, not an exact number, but where it is going.
Could the Quad physically be interfering with the initial launch read?
Thanks for watching! The Quad doesn't affect our TrackMan reads indoors, and we did a repeat test (no video) against the Uneekor EYE XO on the ceiling and got similar problems with club path and spin axis reads.
I think the second shot overall wasnt read by the Garmin.
Edit : second and fourth lolll
Appreciate your time making this video. I am aware of the price point and am looking at this for basic carry distances to practice at home with a net. Had the Rapsodo but iphone only and poor net mode function had me looking at this one. Do you think the distances and basic ball path are ok for the R10? Also - dos the R10 have a shot tracer so you can see your shots (like the Rapsodo)?
Carry distances are spot-on with the R10. Ball curvature can vary wildly from reality, as it currently has difficulty with spin axis. Yes, there is a shot tracer view in the app.
It seemed to read more right that the gc consistently. Could that be alignment?
Thanks for your feedback! Alignment was perfect, as indicated by nearly exact results for horizontal launch angle from both units.
How far away from the screen are you teeing up te ball? Also, what are the dimensions of the impact screen?
Thanks for your question! We were hitting from 11 feet ball-to-screen, and our screen is 16x9 feet.
@@gunghogolf Thanks!
Thanks for videos guys. Are you seeing similar or different reads for AoA, Path, Face Angle
AoA and Path are off as much as on. Face angle a little better.
Looks like the 2 shot wasn't read by the R10 either
I have one on order. Disappointing about the short shots. Will be pretty hard to get the ball on the green
Yes, that's my biggest concern with sim golf with the unit. Fingers crossed they get that solved. Their current tech support response for it is "try using a faster backswing" on those chips - something about the club speed needing to be more different than the ball speed. But that's tough to do with a short chip.
The flying tee causing misreads on the driver testing?
That's unlikely, but no way to know for sure. A tee would have a very different radar signature (very little).
This is very interesting! Thank you!
I wonder why shot deviation seems to be fairly similar despite some far off spin and path numbers. Still, for being pretty darn close maybe 75-90% of the time(?) seems like a good value for casual golfer
Also, I know on garmin forum they recommend nothing reflective in an 8ft radius, could the GC quad be reflecting back and messing with some numbers as it generally is in line with the club head angle as it comes toward the ball in downswing
Thanks for your feedback and suggestion, Brian. Other radar units like the Mevo+ and TrackMan aren't affected by a stationary reflective object near the ball, but perhaps the R10 is. We'll do some testing up against the Uneekor EYE XO (ceiling mounted) to see if results are better.
@@gunghogolf That would be great. My understanding as a Mevo+ owner, was reflective objects in the field of view actually did mess with the readings.
Brian, we just tested against the Uneekor EYE XO (ceiling mounted) and got similar significant discrepancies on total spin, spin axis, and club path, so can safely say that the GCQuad was most likely not a problem in this test.
@@gunghogolf maybe the large projector light hitting the screen? Will there be an outdoor comparison video? This is some great in depth content.
It didn’t register those chip shots, so it didn’t misread.
NEW RELEASE AVAILABLE : 3.7 called "ACCURACY"
maybe should be tested ;)
Have you updated the firmware? I read that the latest one made a difference.
Yes, we were running the latest firmware.
I wonder if you shifted the garmins face to the right/(away from the golfer) if that would fix the club direction pathing glitch and the finishing of the ball on a truer line 🤔
Thanks for watching! That would be a bad fix, as then the horizontal launch angle reads would be way off (they were spot-on in this test).
Let’s be honest if I want to see spin and carry with chip shots, I want to see what the ball actually does on the green. I wouldn’t use a monitor for that. Js
Agree that almost nobody is going to practice chipping with the R10, indoors or out. But it's being marketed as sim-golf compatible, which means users are going to be trying to play E6 Connect sim golf with it, where you absolutely need to make short chips regularly. So it's important they get it to read them, and I'm hopeful they will.
What firmware is this using for the R10?
That’s what I was wondering, they pushed several firmware updates on my S62 when I first ordered it to get it dialed in
Hi, it would be of great help to me to know if the acquisition of the horizontal and vertical lauch direction remains good with the sponge balls.
Could you compare the two systems?
Foam balls won't give a radar signature the R10 will pick up reliably, unfortunately. Camera-based systems are better for using foam balls.
Could you possibly do a video of playing a simulated hole with both simulators at the same time? In other words, the same course, same hole, both launch monitors at the same time. Thanks.
Thanks for your question! That wouldn't be possible, unfortunately, as sim software can connect to only one launch monitor at a time.
@@gunghogolf I don't mean to connect both units to the same software. I mean to run each unit with it's own software.
Ah, I understand now. Yeah, that would be interesting, thanks for the suggestion.
Thanks for the review!
I set up my R10 in my back yard 6+ feet behind the ball, hitting into a net about 8 feet in front of the ball. My main goal is to get accurate distances, direction and shot shape.
My biggest problem is aligning the R10 to directly aim at the target line. Eyeballing the 1/2 inch long red line on top is not much to work with. The horizontal launch angle and shot shape seem to be directly affected by the alignment of the R10. Without another LM to compare it to, I have to rotate the R10 left or right based on how the direction and shape of my shot "feels." There also appears to be a fade bias. I often hit irons on the course with a baby draw, and this shot shape has never shown up with the R10.
Do you have any suggestions on how to accurately align the R10? And how critical do you think the alignment is to measured performance?
Thanks for your feedback.
To align the R10, use steps similar to this guide for the SkyTrak (chipping shots at a center target line in your net - hang a ribbon or something to indicate center): gunghogolf.com/articles/how-to-align-your-skytrak
@@gunghogolf Thanks! I'll give this a try with the R10 when I get home.
@@wildelegard6545 Use a chalk line from net all the way back past intended R10 position. It is the most accurate way to get a straight line.
Builder’s laser line is how I would do it
If I recall correctly, the spin is calculated, not measured. So, it isn't really "reading" anything in regards to spin.
(I'm at the start of the PW) So, far, the distance and where the ball is ending up is really impressive, while the readings on the spin and club path seem off. So, as a simulator, it looks like a good deal except for those really short chips.
Maybe Garmin can adjust the algorithm on spin later for better numbers.
(Added later in video: Some of the misreads on L/R are a little worrying. I wonder how it (the R10) is coming to that conclusion. I trust the GC Quad's numbers (I wish I had the money to get one! ha), so it makes me question the Garmin's algorithm can be completely trusted. If they use the same algorithm in their upcoming optical system, I wonder how it will do.
For the price..... really (updated to "pretty") impressive.
Thanks for the video!
Thanks for your feedback, James. The L/R misreads are just the result of getting the spin axis wrong - nothing's wrong with their ball flight model, but get the axis wrong, and you'll have big misses on where the ball ends up.
I believe it tries to work out the spin axis from club path and from lateral ball movement during flight ... which explains why it performed better outdoors. Gung-ho had 11 feet of flight, which is more than most home users will muster, so an indoor best case scenario at this point in product maturity.
@@morini05 good info. Thanks.
Yeah, I’m guessing I’ll keep saving for a SkyTrak or wait to see how the optical Garmin one that is coming “soon” turns out on price and performance.
@@jamesdunn581 Hi James - What is this new Garmin optical launch monitor called? I'm having trouble finding any info on it. Thanks
@@JDMjdawg Probably meant Bushnell
For the price basic distance speed and a shot tracer is all the Garmin is really for… no way spin is gonna be the data you want of this…. Thanks for the video
Thanks for watching!
Do you still have some in stock?
We're pre-selling against a batch due to arrive in about 3 weeks. If the first batch was an indication, this batch will sell out well in advance of them arriving to us.
cant wait for your next video road testing a smart car vs a ferrari
I appreciate a good snarky response as much as the next guy - but do you have a better idea of how to figure out how accurate the R10 is, other than testing it against a known-accurate launch monitor?
I get the humor defense mechanism, but the value of these devices comes from the job they are expected to perform for you which exactly the same. The job of a Ferrari is completely different than a smart car. The takeaway you should be getting since we all know the price difference is if you are looking to get better by purchasing the garmin…it will only really be giving you decent distance values to help you, everything else is likely so far off you shouldn’t use it to “help” you because you might think you are slicing when you’re not etc.
I also know that Garmin calculates some of the data which can improve with software updates so that could help.
do a test between all three, Trackman, Garmin, and GCQuad
Why does his CHS change so much between the shots? He ranges from 107-119 and ball speeds from 154-174. Never seen anyone like that. I know GCquad doesn't lie so must be his technique.
Charlie was trying to show a variety of shots. When he wants to swing it 117-119 every time, he can.
You are better off visiting a facility to dial your numbers accurately. Too many amateurs have incorrect data and they rely on it.
"Close Enough" with virtual indoor golf thats better than a video game is amazing for something that is 30X less than a GC.
Agree, as long as they can solve the short chipping no-read problem, which could be very frustrating playing sim golf. Worst case, it could be that you could never get your ball on the green for auto-putting to kick in.
Completely agree, I’ve got mine and it does seem to be ‘fade biased’ which I’m hoping can be resolved with the maturity of the software, but people’s expectations seem to be *so* inflated given the price
@@markedwards6807 yeah that is a concern - if you hit a pull and it registers a fade. Hard to trust. But like you said some peoples expectations are ridiculous for the price
@@gunghogolf Several other reviewers on RUclips have chipped with the Garmin without any problems. Maybe you need to update the firmware or change the head angle of the device.
Stupid question guys, was the garmin set up for a right or left handed golfer
Great video btw
I’m curious about this as well.
RH
It’s clear that the r10 is getting the path wrong which is leading to the axis numbers. Consistently showing left path
This is where I question setup, I think a laser setup would take all question out of human setup error vs machine. Great review don’t get me wrong but I have seen some with GCQuad close and others not. A builders laser line setup is only way to be sure.
Got my r10 today. After watching this video, i’m gonna return it for sure. The numbers are way to much off. Its not gonna be possible to play the 42000 courses anyway with so many misreads. Great video!
Hmm…I’m struggling with this. The concept is a great one…all that data in a small package at a reasonable price. But, as they say, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Having all the additional club data is great and what I’m looking for more than the ball data (I can see my ball flight, can’t see exactly what my club is doing). Unfortunately, the club data is pretty much useless. Club path, AoA, FTP are all way off on the R10 to the point of looking like a guess. In other words, you can’t rely on it for anything. Wonder if the GC Quad is interfering with the radar from the R10. Would be nice if you guys shut off the GC Quad and test the R10 alone for the club data. You already know what the numbers should look like given his swing, which is pretty consistent on AoA, FTP, and path…Unless they get that fixed, from what you guys stated as the plusses, you can get a PRGR for less than half the price that gives very accurate swing speed, ball speed, carry distance, and smash factor…it’ll also read swing speed for practice swings!
We recently tested the R10 up against our Uneekor EYE XO (ceiling mounted, so no chance of interference), and got similar results. Radar units don't see any light, so the cameras and IR flashes of either the Quad or the EYE XO won't interfere. The only chance of interference with the Quad is static object reflections (which typically don't matter - we test the Quad up against our TM4 radar unit regularly and they're spot-on with each other.
@@gunghogolf Yikes! Then, not sure why someone would buy the R10 if they are looking for accurate club data…it’s not even worth Garmin wasting their time putting in on the device if the numbers are that out of whack with reality…shocking that Garmin would do that, unless they are taking a page out of the Elon Musk book and instead of paying for QA folks at Garmin, just sell the equipment to the public and let them be the guinea pigs and then sent firmware/software updates as needed…great concept and probably saves them money, but having been a Tesla guinea pig for the past two years, I’m done with that…too exhausting.
I was so excited for the R10 to come out but the more reviews I watch the less excited I get. 800-900rpms difference in spin isn’t a good read, thats a massive difference. Especially when you get into the driver
your garmin was aiming too high up.. lower its face and it would read better... its reading the club path AFTER contact not at contact because it cant see it until its higher up due to it being too tilted
The Garmin was set up properly. There is no angle adjustment on its tripod, so if the tripod is on a flat surface (it was), then it's at the right angle. It will not allow you to hit shots if it detects the angle being wrong.
@@gunghogolf I was wondering same thing when I used mine.Since you have something to compare it to, cud u compare it with both front legs raised a bit and then with the rear leg raised a bit. Mevo+ needs a particular angle and we just got a mass produced tripod than may or may not be within spec. I did notice difference in launch angle when I had the bottom of tripod built up level with mat, and with the R10 box only slight above level of mat. My swing is not consistent enuf to compare shots, but with the quad to compare it to, it might show a difference.
I think that its too far away for the garmin and its strugglig to pick up those short shots because its so far away and the angle that its facing is too high so the shot is below its radar and so it doesn;t pick it up and they cant get lower than 8 yads possible like the low shots its too low for the garmin.
The Garmin was at the recommended 6 feet from ball, and its angle is "fixed" on its tripod (and the unit won't read if it's not at the right angle).
I got the R10 last week and my device picks up the club path pretty close to reality and i record my swings on video so i can validate the reads… im using it outdoors on a net… maybe you had some problems with alignment? or just bad luck with the devive
Would be nice if the R10 gave an audible rather than glancing back for the green light
Maybe a small mirror next to the ball could be used to see the light instead of turning to look.
Those short ones were not picking up
Thanks guys
I would call this a total fail for the Garmin...yes can't expect same performance as $20k unit, but at some point of difference, it is not worth buying at any price. Spin, attack angle and path are massive stats for driver and given the discrepancies are not only too great, but also not consistent.
Haha spent 15mins do a ball speed and club speed comparison. Happen to watch on and its the exact one you did it on 30secs later.
I own a Garmin TruSwing and while it was pretty good for swing speed, all the other data, especially swing path and angles, were absolute trash. It seems that the R10 has not gotten any better. So at best, you can use it for carry with a grain of salt. I will pass on this product and just borrow one from someone on a weekend to try it for a bit of calibration.
Thanks for watching and for your feedback, Peter!
i obviously cant afford something gc quad. i wish this garmin is mostly accurate on the direction and the distance. those two are onlythings i care about.