Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
klineka

Swing Speed Radar Measuring Ball Speed Instead of Clubhead Speed?

11 posts / 2885 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

I recently got one of the swing speed radars that is recommended to be used with the SuperSpeed golf program and have been using it to measure my SuperSpeed progress so far. 

Today I took the radar to the range, and I think the radar was either reading super high for my clubhead speed, or it was detecting the ball speed and not the clubhead speed. When swinging my driver alone without hitting a ball, it was in the upper 80 to low 90 mph range, but then as soon as I started hitting real balls, it spiked up to a 130-140 mph consistently, and I know I'm not swinging that fast.

It doesnt make sense to me that it would be picking up the ball speed, because the instructions specifically say the radar is designed to be used with and provides the most accurate results when hitting an actual ball.

For anyone else that has this, have you experienced anything like this? I'm ok with the swing speed radar clubhead speed not matching 100% to something like a trackman, but it definitely seems weird that it appears to be detecting the ball speed instead of the clubhead speed. Paging some people that I know have the radar. @iacas @Typhoon92 @Shindig @Wanzo

Below is how I had the radar positioned at the range, I thought it was far enough behind the ball not to pick the ball up.  

20181104_125516.jpg

20181104_125618.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Register for free today and you won't see this ad spot again!

I think it's supposed to be ahead of the ball by 8" (and off to the side, obviously).   I'm not home now, but I'll take a picture tomorrow if you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

You are supposed to position it ahead of the ball, at a 45 degree angle back toward you.  So in that photo, to the left of the ball holder, and rotated one quarter turn counter clockwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

14 hours ago, Shindig said:

I think it's supposed to be ahead of the ball by 8" (and off to the side, obviously).   I'm not home now, but I'll take a picture tomorrow if you want.

14 hours ago, allenc said:

You are supposed to position it ahead of the ball, at a 45 degree angle back toward you.  So in that photo, to the left of the ball holder, and rotated one quarter turn counter clockwise.

Ahh ok. I will try that next time I go to the range. Thanks guys. I'll report back later this week and see if that makes the numbers more normal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Yes, Allenc is correct having it just past the ball.  Also angle it back toward you on about a 45 degree angle.

I find it pretty accurate.  I have had one for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

18 hours ago, allenc said:

You are supposed to position it ahead of the ball, at a 45 degree angle back toward you.  So in that photo, to the left of the ball holder, and rotated one quarter turn counter clockwise.

Yeah, i would try this first.  It's how I set mine up.  I don't see why it would make a difference, at least what you are seeing, but worth a shot.  I don't use it a lot when i'm actually hitting balls, but i did test it against a flightscope when i first got it and it was really close, not exact but pretty consistent.  Let us know what you find when you try it again.  Curious if it keeps changing when you go from hitting a ball to just swinging when it's in the correct position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

On 11/4/2018 at 5:28 PM, Shindig said:

I think it's supposed to be ahead of the ball by 8" (and off to the side, obviously).   I'm not home now, but I'll take a picture tomorrow if you want.

On 11/4/2018 at 5:38 PM, allenc said:

You are supposed to position it ahead of the ball, at a 45 degree angle back toward you.  So in that photo, to the left of the ball holder, and rotated one quarter turn counter clockwise.

On 11/5/2018 at 11:03 AM, Typhoon92 said:

Yes, Allenc is correct having it just past the ball.  Also angle it back toward you on about a 45 degree angle.

I find it pretty accurate.  I have had one for years.

On 11/5/2018 at 12:19 PM, Wanzo said:

Yeah, i would try this first.  It's how I set mine up.  I don't see why it would make a difference, at least what you are seeing, but worth a shot.  I don't use it a lot when i'm actually hitting balls, but i did test it against a flightscope when i first got it and it was really close, not exact but pretty consistent.  Let us know what you find when you try it again.  Curious if it keeps changing when you go from hitting a ball to just swinging when it's in the correct position.

I went to the range last night and positioned it how you guys suggested, and that made all the difference. Clubhead speed was consistently right around 105mph, with a couple that reached 110 and 111 when I really went after one.

I dont have any comparison numbers hitting balls with this radar before I started SuperSpeed, but when I have been on a launch monitor last winter, I was 95-100mph, so the 105-110 mph is definitely more in line with what I was expecting. Thanks for the help everyone!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I have also been looking for a good comparison between the Swing Speed Radar and the Swing Caddie Models (SC200). They both have been mentioned in several threads, but I have not seen a really side-by-side comparison. One thing I gather is that with the SC200 you need to be pretty precise in placing the unit, and I also don't like the idea of having to turn around to see the display (it does have audio however). Price difference is of some concern as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I went ahead and ordered the voice caddie unit SC 100.  I had received input from two knowledgeable golf instructors and both recommended the SC over swing speed radar. I chose to get the older model as I saw little difference between it and the newer SC200. I don't really need to fine tune barometric pressure or dial in exact lofts. Mostly to see improvement and also coorelation between swing speed, ball speed, and smash factor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2020 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
  • Posts

    • So with it being the offseason still, I find myself reading and watching a lot of topics on the sport. Lately i came across Scott Fawcett and his strategy for teebox decisions. YouTube has a few videos of his but basically, for people who drive it over 270 pretty consistently, gameplanning should consider any trouble that is within a 70 yard dispersion. Now I already have gamegolf so i can see some dispersion patterns but I obviously dont tag the shots where I completely lose a ball so data is missing. I decided to go to a sim bay using a GCQuad and did a 15 shot driver test. In the end I averaged 268 off the tee in total distance. However off those 15 shots....3 were massive misses of 45, 52, and 60 yards offline. In real life at my home course and most trees courses I play those are lost balls with bad penalties applied. They would only be slightly salvageable at a course with adjacent fairways really. I would say when you look at my gamegolf rounds, the GCQuad result of 3/15 being lost/OB is accurate. So it made me start wondering as someone who has read LSW and Every Stroke Counts and understands advancing the ball far but safely.....how wide of dispersion is considered unusable for a driver? Until my swing improved would I be better off statistically going down to my 16* mini driver or just 21* hybrid? ( next time I do the simulator I was going to do dispersion tests for those)
    • While it may seem like a good idea, you can't just "factory reset" your swing. Better to just focus on a priority and make that better. Rather than trying to achieve a certain kind of swing, just improve on what you currently have.
    • OK -  let me make one final post on this as this horse is well and truly beaten. Just so that I'm fully clear on where you stand in the context of this particular discussion.  Please indulge me. 1. What they DID matters. 2. Why we THINK they did it doesn't matter. 3. Your (and my) opinion of what they did or why they did it is irrelevant 4. The only relevant discussion is the penalty for the infringement. 5. A person's opinion of the character any of the people under discussion has nothing to do with the thread. 6. Anything beyond that is essentially moot. Is that a fair summation?  
    • Not true. Then the conversation ends there, as one cannot suspend a player based on what you think they were thinking.
    • The video evidence is conclusive, I believe, but I understand the semantics of the notion of "proof". I get that. Yep  - I am assuming intent and I fully believe that they intended to cheat. I could not prove it in court and my prejudice may mean that they would have a field day with me in court. I don;t want to be  Suffice to say that it is obvious to many that they both deliberately and blatantly cheated - but you cannot prove intent because you can't prove what someone thought. I am not going to assume that you are playing the devil's advocate or simply  trying not to prove something unprovable or making a philosophical point - I get that you are basically coming down on the side of what can or cannot be reasonably assumed. And that is more than reasonable. I am happy to be o the side of Peter Kostis, Brooks Koepka, Cam Smith and presumably many others. And yes.....I get that your critique of my position applies equally to them. And that is perfectly fair.      
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Catcher20
      Catcher20
      (30 years old)
    2. JD15
      JD15
      (55 years old)
    3. Stixman
      Stixman
      (75 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...