flightscope mevo with superspeed training

[dach818]

Does anyone know if the flightscope mevo will pick up clubhead speed without hitting a ball?  I'm looking for a launch monitor that will give me launch angle and backspin numbers that I can also use with the superspeed training clubs.

[Jota_Jota]

It won't. I think that's why Speed Sticks sells that bundle with the PRGR radar. I think one of the Swing Caddie models will pick up a practice swing

[shoot4par]

Hello,

 

Thank you for your interest in FlightScope.  The Mevo+ will not measure swing speed without a ball being struck.  This is only available in our higher end launch monitors.  Please let us know if you have any additional questions. 

 

FlightScope Mevo Sales

 

 

^^^^ nope got this this morning. ordered a PRGR instead. 

Edited February 16, 2021 by shoot4par

[theboypinoy]

As for the Mevo+, it doesn't measure swing speed right now, but they mentioned at the PGA Show that they are working on it. In the near future, an update will allow speedsticks to be used and speed to be measured.

 

Link where it's mentioned; if the timestamp doesn't work, it's at 29:31: 

 

[dach818]

Looks like I'll have to order the PRGR launch monitor to use with the superspeed set and a separate one to give me launch and spin numbers.

[Jota_Jota]

3 hours ago, shoot4par said:

Hello,

 

Thank you for your interest in FlightScope.  The Mevo+ will not measure swing speed without a ball being struck.  This is only available in our higher end launch monitors.  Please let us know if you have any additional questions. 

 

FlightScope Mevo Sales

 

 

^^^^ nope got this this morning. ordered a PRGR instead. 

Hey! This is off topic, but since you're here lol I wanted to know the height tolerances for the Mevo. I know the ball should be in line with the unit (top of the unit? middle?), but in a PGA Show video Alex Trujillo talked about not wanting a valley between the ball and unit. So if I'm hitting driver off a fiberbuilt mat, which with the tee puts the ball about 4.5 inches off the ground, should I elevate the mevo with a small tripod as I have been doing? 

 

Love the product! And if I finally break 80 this year I'll be putting you on my christmas card list 

[shoot4par]

1 hour ago, Jota_Jota said:

Hey! This is off topic, but since you're here lol I wanted to know the height tolerances for the Mevo. I know the ball should be in line with the unit (top of the unit? middle?), but in a PGA Show video Alex Trujillo talked about not wanting a valley between the ball and unit. So if I'm hitting driver off a fiberbuilt mat, which with the tee puts the ball about 4.5 inches off the ground, should I elevate the mevo with a small tripod as I have been doing? 

 

Love the product! And if I finally break 80 this year I'll be putting you on my christmas card list 

 

I dont work for flightscope , I just asked the same question yesterday evening. 

[Jota_Jota]

14 hours ago, shoot4par said:

 

I dont work for flightscope , I just asked the same question yesterday evening. 

Ha! We're in it together then 

[Jota_Jota]

On 2/16/2021 at 7:01 PM, shoot4par said:

 

I dont work for flightscope , I just asked the same question yesterday evening. 

You ever get an answer from flightscope on this? 

[Daniel Eason]

Im wondering what the reason is some do and some don't. 

 

On my SC300 when I occasionally do a practice swing It picks up, however much slower.

 

Does it use impact sound?

[Jota_Jota]

I think the club head speed is partially measure and partially calculated by ball speed.

[Jota_Jota]

For whatever reason, it seems that measuring club head data is a more complex task across all parameters. Which would also explain why the price of LMs goes up as you get more club head information— path, face, etc. 

[Stuart_G]

On 3/5/2021 at 11:20 AM, Jota_Jota said:

I think the club head speed is partially measure and partially calculated by ball speed.

 

Not with any of the flightscope (or TM) radar units.   It really wouldn't make sense when the doppler data is directly available for the club head.   The only issue is how to translate the variable speed across the whole head to a single value.   Or distinguishing between a real swing and a practice swing or other 'noise' that the radar picks up.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Stuart_G

[Jota_Jota]

2 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Not with any of the flightscope (or TM) radar units.   It really wouldn't make sense when the doppler data is directly available for the club head.   The only issue is how to translate the variable speed across the whole head to a single value.

Thanks for the clarification. That single value being club head speed because the club head is moving throughout the swing? Which is to say, impact is used as the moment to determine that single value? Do you know why across sub $500 launch monitors, ball speed is more accurate than club head speed? 

[Stuart_G]

3 minutes ago, Jota_Jota said:

Thanks for the clarification. That single value being club head speed because the club head is moving throughout the swing? Which is to say, impact is used as the moment to determine that single value? Do you know why across sub $500 launch monitors, ball speed is more accurate than club head speed? 

 

I didn't mention that specifically but yes,  that's a big part of the measuring process as well - knowing which velocity with respect to time to use and show.

 

I haven't seen any actual data to validate any trend based on cost.   But if it's true and I had to guess, I would suspect it has to do with the complexity and level of the signal processing required to filter and analyze the raw doppler data from the head and convert it to a single value.  But that would be more related to processing the data at a particular instant in time - not as much the determination of what time to pick to use the data.   Remember, velocity values are being collected from all parts of the head - e.g. the velocity is not constant from the heel to the toe.  The radar unit has to determine the center of volume from all the returns across the whole head and figure out which one to use to represent the club head speed.

 

[Jota_Jota]

54 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

I didn't mention that specifically but yes,  that's a big part of the measuring process as well - knowing which velocity with respect to time to use and show.

 

I haven't seen any actual data to validate any trend based on cost.   But if it's true and I had to guess, I would suspect it has to do with the complexity and level of the signal processing required to filter and analyze the raw doppler data from the head and convert it to a single value.  But that would be more related to processing the data at a particular instant in time - not as much the determination of what time to pick to use the data.   Remember, velocity values are being collected from all parts of the head - e.g. the velocity is not constant from the heel to the toe.  The radar unit has to determine the center of volume from all the returns across the whole head and figure out which one to use to represent the club head speed.

 

Thanks again. Yeah, of course, the toe is moving faster than the heel. As for the accuracy and precision of ball speed, I was thinking of this study, done by Rapsodo to show the accuracies of the Rapsodo and Mevo with Trackman as the standard. For whatever reason, those errors are largest at the upper and lower ends of the bag. But those are ball speed inaccuracies. In this podcast I heard about the issues of club head speed; apparently camera systems and doppler systems have different approaches for capturing club head data. Doppler systems use a center of volume method, and camera systems use first touch. A doppler system measures the club head slightly after impact, which causes doppler systems to have a slightly slower club head speed. So perhaps this club head speed disparity between high-end and low-end units is that the high-end units use both doppler and optical to take measurements. But I'll qualify all of this by saying I'm a Humanities guy. 

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, Jota_Jota said:

 I heard about the issues of club head speed; apparently camera systems and doppler systems have different approaches for capturing club head data. Doppler systems use a center of volume method, and camera systems use first touch. A doppler system measures the club head slightly after impact, which causes doppler systems to have a slightly slower club head speed.

 

Yes, the two parameters that matter to the results is 1) where on the club head to measure the velocity and 2) when to measure it.  And on top of that, even the calculations for determining things like where the center of volume is or when first contact occurs or when max compression occurs can result in different values.  

 

But the trouble most people have is understanding that's not really an issue of accuracy but rather methodology - or how they define the quantity being shown.   One can certainly have opinions or even argue about which methods or definitions are better but without any standard, you can't really call the differences inaccuracies since the concept of which is a better definition is purely subjective.  It also makes comparing results from different companies a bit pointless (even say comparing TM4 results to the X3 results).

 

If you want a true evaluation of accuracy, you need to use a much higher fidelity method with a previously determined accuracy/uncertainty as a baseline and make sure the definitions used are synced up.  The closest one I've seen was a study done by Leach et. al.  comparing TM3e to FC2 back in 2017.  They used a super accurate (and super expensive) 3D dynamic displacement measurement system - with a known calibrated accuracy of about 0.06 mph for ball speed and 14 rpm for spin.   but even it only looked at the accuracy with respect to the ball values.  It didn't go into accuracy for club head data.   And it didn't even attempt to check or compare spin axis, just total spin.

 

If you're curious about what it takes to set-up and do a true scientific test of accuracy, do a search for that paper.  It's titled

 

"How valid and accurate are measurements of golf impact parameters
obtained using commercially available radar and stereoscopic optical launch
monitors?"

 

[ElephantTusk]

Bumping this - it now claims to pick up non-impact swings. Has anyone tried it?

[ste1010]

On 10/1/2024 at 4:08 AM, ElephantTusk said:

Bumping this - it now claims to pick up non-impact swings. Has anyone tried it?

I had an online chat with FS Support and they claimed this function is now available. It does require a firmware upgrade to the Mevo which is done via the FS app. Not seen any reviews of this being used yet.

[ElephantTusk]

I'm actually went ahead and pulled the trigger on one - tested it out yesterday and the speed training module seems very well done!

 

Speaks out the numbers, allows selecting from Stack system or from the various Super Speed colors to keep the data well organized. So far very happy with the purchase. Will test it out on the range this weekend.

[SEP1006]

23 minutes ago, ElephantTusk said:

I'm actually went ahead and pulled the trigger on one - tested it out yesterday and the speed training module seems very well done!

 

Speaks out the numbers, allows selecting from Stack system or from the various Super Speed colors to keep the data well organized. So far very happy with the purchase. Will test it out on the range this weekend.

 

 

Keep us updated on this as you use it more. Been contemplating getting one myself. But have held off because it wouldn't read swings without a ball.

 

 

[WrigleyGolf]

Just came across this topic and wanted to comment for the sake of having accurate info available. Seems like this area of the forum is not well trafficked.

 

The OP's question asks about the Mevo, but a lot of the responses have mentioned the Mevo+. Just to clarify these are two different products. the Mevo is $350, and the Mevo+ is $2300. 

 

At the time of this writing both of these launch monitors will read club head speed without ball contact, so yes you can use either for speed training. This ability was added to the devices via a firmware update right around the time of the original post, so I can understand some of the confusion.

 

In addition to club head speed, the Mevo+ with the pro package will also give you club path, vertical plane, and horizontal plane in swing training mode without ball contact.

 

I can't say enough good things about the Mevo+. I've had one for about 3 years now and I've added both the pro package and the face impact upgrade, and the quality of the data is unparalleled, especially when you consider the price. The fully loaded Mevo+ is something like $3500 full retail and is often on sale for less than $3000. The best part for me is there is no subscription fee. Buy the device once and pay nothing ever again. The only other launch monitors that offer the same level of data points is a GC Quad for $16,000, and a Trackman for $22,000, +$1100 per year subscription. 

 

I have a friend with a Quad and we've setup both simultaneously to compare data. The data points from each LM are different, but the differences are consistent and within a small margin of 1 or 2%. In other words, it's hard to definitively say which is "more" accurate. The one thing to note here is that the foresight devices like the GC Quad are purely optical based launch monitors and so will only ever gather data from the ball for a limited amount of distance of ball flight. The GC Quad also doesn't do speed training (more expensive Foresight LM's do). A radar based LM like a Mevo or Trackman will continue to capture data long past the abilities of an optical LM, so if you'll be using your LM outdoors on a range this could be useful. One last thing to mention is the Mevo+ putting mode is just not very good. It might have improved with firmware upgrades since it launched but when I tried it shortly after the feature was added I was very unimpressed. 

 

Hope this helps, and no, I'm not in any way affiliated with any of these companies.