Garmin Approach R10 Portable Golf Launch Monitor

[Guest]

I'm hitting outdoors into a net 9' away, and even have a metal chain link fence a foot behind that.  Ball speed is spot on for me.

 

I hit the ball farther than most, and for me to carry a 45* PW 130-135 yards requires a 100% swing with excellent contact and 100+mph ball speed and <30* launch angle.  According to trackman data and my experience on other launch monitors, that equates to a 110+mph driver swing speed, which again is my 100% effort, and faster than most. YMMV.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2021 by Guest

[Simpsonia]

29 minutes ago, Dwchung6 said:

it looks like the garmin forum has this long thread regarding how the distance is way off when hitting the ball into a net, regardless of whether you are inside or outside. The difference people report in carry distance almost makes it sound like R10 is not compatible with a hitting net at this point. Is this what everyone is experiencing?

 

There are two separate issues going on. First is the poster up-thread who is reporting massively short carry distances with short-irons, which is either an actual bad unit or user error (ie indoor swing syndrome) as almost everyone else is showing very accurate numbers on the short-irons. Testing has shown carry to be very accurate vs a GCQuad with short-irons and wedges https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAT9XbBrN3s. 

 

Second though is that vertical launch is an issue with the R10, as is spin on the longer clubs. Driver through long-irons are legitimately short on carry due to a combination of low Vertical Launch and high-spin. Those are almost certainly fixable through firmware updates, and I'm certain will be in time. 

[RDLK]

I just received mine - of course just when I was ready to try it thunderstorm hit so no chance to test it. However when I connected it through Garmin Express on my W10 PC it had already a new software available 3.40! Downloaded and updated. Will test tomorrow.

[jjschafe]

If I understand correctly, there are three ways to use this as a sim

1) Pay for home tee hero

2) Pay for E6

3) Get 5 free E6 courses when using iOS

 

So for us Android users, there are no free paths to using as a sim.  Can someone confirm the above is correct? 

[jimmies78]

correct

[Red4282]

1 hour ago, Dwchung6 said:

it looks like the garmin forum has this long thread regarding how the distance is way off when hitting the ball into a net, regardless of whether you are inside or outside. The difference people report in carry distance almost makes it sound like R10 is not compatible with a hitting net at this point. Is this what everyone is experiencing?

No it is not what everyone is experiencing.

[RCGA]

2 hours ago, Dwchung6 said:

it looks like the garmin forum has this long thread regarding how the distance is way off when hitting the ball into a net, regardless of whether you are inside or outside. The difference people report in carry distance almost makes it sound like R10 is not compatible with a hitting net at this point. Is this what everyone is experiencing?

 

The only reason I want it is so I can hit balls in my garage over the winter. 

 

If it doesn't work well, I might as well buy a PRGR. 

[Red4282]

1 hour ago, RCGA said:

 

The only reason I want it is so I can hit balls in my garage over the winter. 

 

If it doesn't work well, I might as well buy a PRGR. 

You have to keep in mind, that if you are visiting a garmin forum to begin with, you are going there with an issue. Only a handful of people and nobody said anything about speed or spin. Thats important to know wether or not its getting bad reads or if its an algorithm problem. Algorithm is an easy fix-software update. Bad reads, not so much. Like many suggested take it to a range. If it works there, then likely something with your net setup is the issue.

[Clint Kennedy]

@RCGA I have a PRGR Black for sale if you want it.

[misfo]

 

[dpvu]

I finally got my net and completed my indoor set up. I have 6 feet from unit to ball and about 11-12 feet of travel from ball to net. My impressions remain unchanged. Everything is working just as well for me indoors as it was at the range. Driver may be very slightly short but I'm also not used to swinging indoors so very much could be indoor swing.

 

Pic of setup: 

 

 

[whumber]

9 hours ago, Dwchung6 said:

it looks like the garmin forum has this long thread regarding how the distance is way off when hitting the ball into a net, regardless of whether you are inside or outside. The difference people report in carry distance almost makes it sound like R10 is not compatible with a hitting net at this point. Is this what everyone is experiencing?

 

I've been using it a bit with an outdoor net at a course that doesn't have a range and the carry numbers all seem pretty reasonable. Driver is a bit short but wedges through long irons all seem about where I expect them to be.

Edited August 26, 2021 by whumber

[whumber]

7 hours ago, RCGA said:

 

The only reason I want it is so I can hit balls in my garage over the winter. 

 

If it doesn't work well, I might as well buy a PRGR. 

The gist of that thread so far seems to be that FW 3.20 gave fairly accurate numbers into the net but when people update to FW 3.30 distances are significantly underpredicted. I haven't really experienced that too much, outside of driver carry being a bit low, but the only net I'm hitting into has about 15ft from the center of the mat to the net so it may not be representative of what others are seeing.

[ENENEN]

44 minutes ago, dpvu said:

I finally got my net and completed my indoor set up. I have 6 feet from unit to ball and about 11-12 feet of travel from ball to net. My impressions remain unchanged. Everything is working just as well for me indoors as it was at the range. Driver may be very slightly short but I'm also not used to swinging indoors so very much could be indoor swing.

 

Pic of setup: 

 

 

 

I'd definitely hit one under that net.

 

Anybody gotten a shipping confirmation from Crutchfield yet??

[games]

38 minutes ago, whumber said:

The gist of that thread so far seems to be that FW 3.20 gave fairly accurate numbers into the net but when people update to FW 3.30 distances are significantly underpredicted. I haven't really experienced that too much, outside of driver carry being a bit low, but the only net I'm hitting into has about 15ft from the center of the mat to the net so it may not be representative of what others are seeing.

 

15 feet of flight is HUGE for an indoor / limited flight setup.  I would guess typical is 8-10 feet.  I would say most indoor sims max out at 12-15'.

 

That's why I fear for the guys who liked what they saw on the outdoor setup and just assumed it would translate to indoor...       

[Dwchung6]

1 hour ago, whumber said:

The gist of that thread so far seems to be that FW 3.20 gave fairly accurate numbers into the net but when people update to FW 3.30 distances are significantly underpredicted. I haven't really experienced that too much, outside of driver carry being a bit low, but the only net I'm hitting into has about 15ft from the center of the mat to the net so it may not be representative of what others are seeing.

are you using 3.2 or 3.3 version of the firmware? I have not updated it to 3.3 yet and I am wondering if it would be better to use it as 3.2 at this point. please let me know. thanks

[cometravi]

12 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

Something isn't adding up here. Are you saying that ball speed measured by the R10 is too low or that it is accurate based on your other sim? Either way, as @mgoblue83 said, a ball with 92mph ball speed isn't going to carry 145yards. Even if you blade it and hit a super low spin knuckle-ball, it's not going to carry 145 yards with 92mph. You can double-check the numbers on Flightscope's trajectory optimizer https://flightscope.com/products/trajectory-optimizer/. 

 

Just as a test, I plugged in a Denver-like 5k ft altitude, with a 4k RPM backspin knuckleball at 92mph, you'd still only get ~130y carry. At standard 9-iron backspins you're much closer to ~120y carry with that ball speed. And if you don't live in Denver, it's closer to ~112-114y carry which is pretty close to what you're seeing on the R10. 

 

So either you hit it harder/faster outside on the golf course (in which case we're back to indoor swing syndrome), or you don't carry it as far as you think you do. Because unless you're on the moon, physics does not allow a 92mph ball to carry 145-150y. 

 

 

 

Other sim gives higher club and ball speeds compared to the r10! It’s pretty accurate as it’s IR based . I tested the R10 outside again. 9 ft back and let it fly. GW flew 110. ( (130 usually)

[cometravi]

41 minutes ago, Dwchung6 said:

are you using 3.2 or 3.3 version of the firmware? I have not updated it to 3.3 yet and I am wondering if it would be better to use it as 3.2 at this point. please let me know. thanks

I updated to 3.3 before using… the 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, cometravi said:

Other sim gives higher club and ball speeds compared to the r10! It’s pretty accurate as it’s IR based . I tested the R10 outside again. 9 ft back and let it fly. GW flew 110. ( (130 usually)

 

Listen.  Everyone here is trying to not be that guy, but your "normal" distances don't make any sense. 

 

You said you are 6'4".  I am 6'4".  You said you hit your GW 130, your 9 iron 150, and your 200 yard go to club is a hybrid.  I can swing fast enough to be in the top 1% of golfers, and it takes 100% effort, near perfect strike, and ideal launch angle for me to carry a 45* PW 135.  My normal carry is 105 GW, 120 PW, 135 9 iron, and 215 carry with a 19* hybrid.

 

I'm not saying you don't hit your short irons that far, but what hybrid do you have that you can hit a 41* 9 iron 150 yards, but that hybrid only carries 200?

[whumber]

59 minutes ago, Dwchung6 said:

are you using 3.2 or 3.3 version of the firmware? I have not updated it to 3.3 yet and I am wondering if it would be better to use it as 3.2 at this point. please let me know. thanks

I'm using 3.30.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, whumber said:

I'm using 3.30.

 

I'm using 3.30 into a net with great success as well

[Kirios]

4 minutes ago, jeg208 said:

 

I'm using 3.30 into a net with great success as well

 

Same here.  Minor hiccups here or there where clearly something is underreported but I had the same experience with Mevo+.

[whumber]

26 minutes ago, jeg208 said:

 

Listen.  Everyone here is trying to not be that guy, but your "normal" distances don't make any sense. 

 

You said you are 6'4".  I am 6'4".  You said you hit your GW 130, your 9 iron 150, and your 200 yard go to club is a hybrid.  I can swing fast enough to be in the top 1% of golfers, and it takes 100% effort, near perfect strike, and ideal launch angle for me to carry a 45* PW 135.  My normal carry is 105 GW, 120 PW, 135 9 iron, and 215 carry with a 19* hybrid.

 

I'm not saying you don't hit your short irons that far, but what hybrid do you have that you can hit a 41* 9 iron 150 yards, but that hybrid only carries 200?

Maybe it's like a 24deg 5 hybrid or something that he's hitting. Carrying a 9 iron 150 isn't really abnormal, especially with a hollow body iron, but I agree to do that and only hit a hybrid 200 carry is strange unless it's a relatively high lofted hybrid.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, whumber said:

Maybe it's like a 24deg 5 hybrid or something that he's hitting. Carrying a 9 iron 150 isn't really abnormal, especially with a hollow body iron, but I agree to do that and only hit a hybrid 200 carry is strange unless it's a relatively high lofted hybrid.

 

For sure, totally doable, but I would say abnormal or at least pretty rare average with an i200.  I just think most people have an unrealistic expectation for their distances.  I rolled my 215 hybrid onto a flat approach green on Wednesday that was 260 out, but that doesn't mean it's now my 260 approach club.

 

Edit:. If you are hitting your GW 110 average carry, you are smashing it!  Enjoy likely being in the top 1* of amateur male golfers for speed and distance!  130 would just be a pain in the a** for gapping anyways 🙂

Edited August 27, 2021 by Guest

[whumber]

18 minutes ago, jeg208 said:

 

For sure, totally doable, but I would say abnormal or at least pretty rare average with an i200.  I just think most people have an unrealistic expectation for their distances.  I rolled my 215 hybrid onto a flat approach green on Wednesday that was 260 out, but that doesn't mean it's now my 260 approach club.

 

Edit:. If you are hitting your GW 110 average carry, you are smashing it!  Enjoy likely being in the top 1* of amateur male golfers for speed and distance!  130 would just be a pain in the a** for gapping anyways 🙂

Agreed that 130 carry for a GW is a fairly big number depending on the loft of the GW in question, I'm pretty skeptical that 110 carry on a gap wedge is top 1% (I assume that's what you meant) though. I'm playing off a high single digit handicap and my 50 deg specialty GW carries in the 116-120 range measured by multiple launch monitors and backed up by Arccos GPS data. I'm really not trying to turn this into any kind of...measuring contest but I think that distance for a GW is just more common than you're implying unless I completely misunderstood what you wrote which is certainly possible.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, whumber said:

Agreed that 130 carry for a GW is a fairly big number depending on the loft of the GW in question, I'm pretty skeptical that 110 carry on a gap wedge is top 1% (I assume that's what you meant) though. I'm playing off a high single digit handicap and my 50 deg specialty GW carries in the 116-120 range measured by multiple launch monitors and backed up by Arccos GPS data. I'm really not trying to turn this into any kind of...measuring contest but I think that distance for a GW is just more common than you're implying unless I completely misunderstood what you wrote which is certainly possible.

 

Yeah I was implying that 110 average at 80% effort, would probably put you in the top 1* (meaning sure, you might squeeze a few out to 130 at 100%, but that would be a pretty rare average for am golf)

 

Edit:. I don't know how arccos works, but I assume like Garmin?  This is one of the reasons I had a distance expectation issue.  I would cruise out to all my 260-270 3 wood shots off the tee box, only to realize later that flat carry off the deck was 230ish 😄

Edited August 27, 2021 by Guest

[whumber]

44 minutes ago, jeg208 said:

 

Yeah I was implying that 110 average at 80% effort, would probably put you in the top 1* (meaning sure, you might squeeze a few out to 130 at 100%, but that would be a pretty rare average for am golf)

 

Edit:. I don't know how arccos works, but I assume like Garmin?  This is one of the reasons I had a distance expectation issue.  I would cruise out to all my 260-270 3 wood shots off the tee box, only to realize later that flat carry off the deck was 230ish 😄

Oh ok, yeah, 110 for a GW with a partial wedge swing makes way more sense; 130 with a partial GW would be crazy. Arccos is a phone app that connects to little sensors in the club that record where you hit each shot via GPS. Obviously for a long club like a fairway wood, driver, or long iron it's usually tough to separate out total distance, which is what you actually get from GPS, from carry. For short irons and wedges though you can get a pretty good idea of true carry distance, especially when you can see pitch marks.

Edited August 27, 2021 by whumber

[puresurfr]

5 hours ago, ENENEN said:

 

I'd definitely hit one under that net.

 

Anybody gotten a shipping confirmation from Crutchfield yet??

 

I received mine from Crutchfield last week

[Spazzen]

On 8/26/2021 at 8:00 AM, Oh Hi Carl said:

According to Garmin's website, if you order from them today you get to wait 5-8 weeks.  

Garmin's website is mostly a lie.

 

They were advertising 7-10 business days to ship last week in Australia despite customer support telling me my order from day one of pre orders wouldn't be filled for a month.

[RDLK]

3) Get 5 free E6 courses when using iOS

 

How does this work? Can you share that secret 🙂