Garmin Approach R10 Portable Golf Launch Monitor

[donuts]

I was an early adopter of the Garmin Z80 rangefinder, it’s very gimmicky and fails at some of the basics.  Some great ideas that were improved on with the Z82 but I’m not confident in Garmin especially their horrific customer service.  

[Sandhurst241069]

9 hours ago, North Butte said:

I'm not a big fan of the way these things are done nowadays but what's going on with the R10 is exactly the normal way of rolling out a new gadget of any kind, not just golf stuff. The company knows it's going to take a *long* time to actually get the thing working right, get a bunch of them churned out in Asia and then actually get them in hand in Europe and North America. So they start months in advance by seeding social media with hype like those YouTube "reviews" by Mr. Excitable, talking about how great it is.

 

The company knows all along when they have those "reviews" posted that they're months at best from delivering any product and probably a year or two from delivering products that work well and have most of the initial bugs ironed out. But once there's a certain level of discussion online it becomes self-perpetuating. At some point they let people pre-order the thing to keep them hooked and keep them talking about it while the wait continues. 

 

Most likely, you guys will eventually get an R10 and most likely by then they'll have it working more or less as advertised. But it won't be a fully mature Ready For Prime Time product until long after the initial hype and until a few thousand people have used it and the company finds the remaining bugs. And there is a finite chance that the thing will never work worth a darn. It's all part of the Early Adopter experience. 

Well I decided a few days ago to cancel my pre-order. Last straw for me was this page that provided very different information around accuracy of certain readings vs the link earlier in the thread… https://golfstead.com/garmin-approach-r10-launch-monitor-review

Combined with a conspicuous lack of positive noise from Rick Sheils et al .. the old Spidey senses told me to wait on this one…

[North Butte]

1 minute ago, Sandhurst241069 said:

Well I decided a few days ago to cancel my pre-order. Last straw for me was this page that provided very different information around accuracy of certain readings vs the link earlier in the thread… https://golfstead.com/garmin-approach-r10-launch-monitor-review

Combined with a conspicuous lack of positive noise from Rick Sheils et al .. the old Spidey senses told me to wait on this one…

I will say the thought of getting one has crossed my mind but I'll make that evaluation in a year or so after I'm sure it can deliver on most of what it promises. My guess is eventually it'll probably do a good job on like 70-80% of what the hype is claiming and a so-so job on another 10-20%. There's bound to be at least a few things that never quite make it to prime time.

 

If it really does delivery 80% of what's promised and it gets there in a few months, it'll be a real game-changing product in that price range. 

[Re*Ax]

On 7/21/2021 at 3:40 AM, Sandhurst241069 said:

 

 

Yep.. copied below for convenience.. hope that info was correct as I’ve pre ordered based on a combination of that and faith in Garmin 😉 If I can get a reasonable sense of where solid shots are finishing relative to each other, and with a semi reasonable degree of general accuracy.. then I’m not fussed about extreme misses that might confuse the algorithm. In theory, if the club and ball path reading in all dimensions is ok then calculated face angle and spin should be close enough to do the job.. not using it for club fitting etc..

 

 

Ok, so I'm getting really worried about what I've ordered (I note the comments above about an on-going improvement in accuracy)

 

I've just seen on another "review" a similar list of tolerances, which seem to all match apart from the Path and Attack Angle.

 

Path on that site is showing +/- Three Degrees (!) and AoA at +/- Two Degrees 

 

Could be a mis-type, but it looks cut and pasted/embedded

 

Then, I checked the Garmin Website, and now it no longer lists Tolerance for Path or AoA !!!!!!!!!!

 

Hmmmmm.....

 

I know we all know this, but this means I *could* swing perfectly neutral at a shot and this R10 will either display it as a High Block or a Low Pull with those +/- figures, so if they are as per the website I came across the unit is unusable for me, and I will just stick my my old Mevo.

[Re*Ax]

11 hours ago, Sandhurst241069 said:

Well I decided a few days ago to cancel my pre-order. Last straw for me was this page that provided very different information around accuracy of certain readings vs the link earlier in the thread… https://golfstead.com/garmin-approach-r10-launch-monitor-review

Combined with a conspicuous lack of positive noise from Rick Sheils et al .. the old Spidey senses told me to wait on this one…

 

Sorry - finally spotted this post I was looking for about accuracy - this is the website I also referenced, the tolerances shown here are awful - consider my order cancelled too

[Stuart_G]

I think people need to re-adjust their expectations for accuracy.

 

Here are actual (independently tested) accuracy numbers (% of test results that were within the specified tolerances) for Trackman III and GC2/HMT.   Should you really expect that a significantly less expensive unit will be better than these?

 

 

 

PS - the club head speed and AoA numbers are a little deceiving due to the variations in the time (relative to impact) when the readings are measured.  The differences in the results are more reflective of differences in methodology than the actually accuracy of the measurements.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Stuart_G

[Re*Ax]

I guess, for me, all I want is for it to be accurate 'to itself' within a small margin - which may indeed be a larger error when compared to a high end unit.

 

I currently use the MEVO, I take it to the range, hit a couple of buckets of balls and then download the data to Excel, take out any obvious misreads and then set session averages from there.

 

Interesting numbers you've posted on TM/GC2...also interested what they used to test the accuracy!

 

I understand the numbers on my MEVO won't be as accurate as units more expensive, but I am confident that if my CHS goes from 102 to 104 over a period of a month of trying to swing faster, that it has accurately measured a change in the swings/shots.

 

I guess what I'm worried about is the R10 wildly swinging from each extreme of the tolerance from swing to swing  - again with specific regard to Path and AoA which are the two big things I'm working on.

 

If I can download the data into my pivot tables and see over a period of a month or two that AoA getting more down on my irons, and more towards a straight path rather than hugely in-out, and I'm seeing the results match up on the course, i.e. no more irons that over-draw I will be very happy with the Unit.

 

Not cancelled yet, but still checking everywhere, every hour for a 'proper' review. 

[Sanchez27]

I preordered my R10 on the 14th July (UK), but after doing more reading and research, I’ve decided to cancel my order as the variances on the club data, particularly Club Path are just too high to view this as an upgrade on the Rapsodo unit I’ve already got. Will take a look again in early 2022 and see how this one plays out.

[North Butte]

29 minutes ago, Re*Ax said:

I guess, for me, all I want is for it to be accurate 'to itself' within a small margin - which may indeed be a larger error when compared to a high end unit.

 

I currently use the MEVO, I take it to the range, hit a couple of buckets of balls and then download the data to Excel, take out any obvious misreads and then set session averages from there.

 

Interesting numbers you've posted on TM/GC2...also interested what they used to test the accuracy!

 

I understand the numbers on my MEVO won't be as accurate as units more expensive, but I am confident that if my CHS goes from 102 to 104 over a period of a month of trying to swing faster, that it has accurately measured a change in the swings/shots.

 

I guess what I'm worried about is the R10 wildly swinging from each extreme of the tolerance from swing to swing  - again with specific regard to Path and AoA which are the two big things I'm working on.

 

If I can download the data into my pivot tables and see over a period of a month or two that AoA getting more down on my irons, and more towards a straight path rather than hugely in-out, and I'm seeing the results match up on the course, i.e. no more irons that over-draw I will be very happy with the Unit.

 

Not cancelled yet, but still checking everywhere, every hour for a 'proper' review. 

If you want consistent and reliable ball speed readings with an inexpensive launch monitor that's a pretty easy ask as long as you're willing to accept a swing-to-swing tolerance of a few mph.

 

If you want consistent and reliable clubhead speed readings that's a little tougher but still not likely to be a problem. There are methodological differences as Stuart alluded to BETWEEN monitors but WITHIN monitors it's not hard to get consistent clubhead speeds.

 

But as you move to other parameters it gets tougher and even the within-device tolerances get worse. Launch angle, not too bad. Spin is a bigger issue. By time you get to Angle of Attack or Face Angle that's not easy to nail down even with extremely expensive devices. 

 

But Stuart makes the important point that no device right up to an including the mighty Trackman should be taken as some sort of nigh-perfect measurement of every parameter on each individual shot. As always with measuring things in the real world, you can have a lot more confidence in the data for (let's pick an example) Angle of Attack measured over 10 swings compared to another 10 swings than comparing numbers from one individual swing to another single swing.

 

If you are trying to hit down less on your driver and you're getting real-time feedback from a launch monitor on each swing, in my opinion it would be a mistake to try to adjust your mechanics on each consecutive swing based on the exact AoA number reported on the previous swing.

 

If you got a series of AoA measurements like -1, -4, -3, -4, +1, -2, 0, -3, -5, -3 for ten consecutive swings then no matter what launch monitor you use it would be a mistake to conclude that the three-swing series of +1, -2, 0 were a "success" while the four swings before and the three swings after were "failures" in your goal of swinging less downward. That sort of series of numbers are entirely within the realm of possibility for measurement tolerances causing the apparent variation while the actual swings were all within a couple degrees of each other. 

 

On other hand if you made ten swings that all measured between -3 and -8 degrees followed by ten swings all between +1 and -5 degrees you could well conclude that there was an improvement in the second set of ten swings. That's probably the kind of comparisons that make sense with a Trackman or other high-$$$ device. Even if the R10 does a very, very good job of bringing those parameters into reach for under-$1,000 monitor buyers it's unlikely to be as good in terms of tolerances as something like Trackman.

[Re*Ax]

1 minute ago, North Butte said:

If you want consistent and reliable ball speed readings with an inexpensive launch monitor that's a pretty easy ask as long as you're willing to accept a swing-to-swing tolerance of a few mph.

 

If you want consistent and reliable clubhead speed readings that's a little tougher but still not likely to be a problem. There are methodological differences as Stuart alluded to BETWEEN monitors but WITHIN monitors it's not hard to get consistent clubhead speeds.

 

But as you move to other parameters it gets tougher and even the within-device tolerances get worse. Launch angle, not too bad. Spin is a bigger issue. By time you get to Angle of Attack or Face Angle that's not easy to nail down even with extremely expensive devices. 

 

But Stuart makes the important point that no device right up to an including the mighty Trackman should be taken as some sort of nigh-perfect measurement of every parameter on each individual shot. As always with measuring things in the real world, you can have a lot more confidence in the data for (let's pick an example) Angle of Attack measured over 10 swings compared to another 10 swings than comparing numbers from one individual swing to another single swing.

 

If you are trying to hit down less on your driver and you're getting real-time feedback from a launch monitor on each swing, in my opinion it would be a mistake to try to adjust your mechanics on each consecutive swing based on the exact AoA number reported on the previous swing.

 

If you got a series of AoA measurements like -1, -4, -3, -4, +1, -2, 0, -3, -5, -3 for ten consecutive swings then no matter what launch monitor you use it would be a mistake to conclude that the three-swing series of +1, -2, 0 were a "success" while the four swings before and the three swings after were "failures" in your goal of swinging less downward. That sort of series of numbers are entirely within the realm of possibility for measurement tolerances causing the apparent variation while the actual swings were all within a couple degrees of each other. 

 

On other hand if you made ten swings that all measured between -3 and -8 degrees followed by ten swings all between +1 and -5 degrees you could well conclude that there was an improvement in the second set of ten swings. That's probably the kind of comparisons that make sense with a Trackman or other high-$$$ device. Even if the R10 does a very, very good job of bringing those parameters into reach for under-$1,000 monitor buyers it's unlikely to be as good in terms of tolerances as something like Trackman.

 

Yeah, that's what I was alluding to when describing what I do currently with my Mevo, I hit a couple of baskets of balls, I loosely check the numbers throughout the session, but it's only once I get the data into excel and remove the extreme/weird readings that I actually pay attention.

 

I then compare to previous sessions for an overall idea of changes, which with the Mevo was a certain CHS/Ball speed target I'm working towards.

 

My intention is to do the same with the R10, so yes if a see my average 7 Iron AoA move from 0 to -1 to -2 (all ish) over a period of a couple of months then I'll see the unit as a success, and maybe I'll start hitting it more like a 2 handicapper.

[North Butte]

1 minute ago, Re*Ax said:

 

Yeah, that's what I was alluding to when describing what I do currently with my Mevo, I hit a couple of baskets of balls, I loosely check the numbers throughout the session, but it's only once I get the data into excel and remove the extreme/weird readings that I actually pay attention.

 

I then compare to previous sessions for an overall idea of changes, which with the Mevo was a certain CHS/Ball speed target I'm working towards.

 

My intention is to do the same with the R10, so yes if a see my average 7 Iron AoA move from 0 to -1 to -2 (all ish) over a period of a couple of months then I'll see the unit as a success, and maybe I'll start hitting it more like a 2 handicapper.

To trust an 0 to -2 AoA change with something like an R10 (assuming it turns out to do AoA decently) might be just about possible but for me, wow it would take a whole lot of shots and a whole lot of data cleaning before I trusted that the change was really there. 

 

I briefly tried a MEVO and thought the club/ball speed numbers as well as (surprisingly) the distance calculation/estimates were quite good. But the only way I could get believable launch angle numbers was to have the MEVO on a dead-flat, dead-level surface with the horizontal and vertical aim nearly perfect and with the unit and the ball at precisely the same height. And also measure the ball-to-unit distance within a couple inches.

 

If it takes that careful a setup to get launch angle numbers that aren't obviously wrong (like launching a 36deg iron shot at 32deg launch angle or estimated peak heights of 90+ feet when I'm swinging a driver at 86mph) I can only imagine how difficult it's going to be to get accurate and repeatable club path numbers from an R10.

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, Re*Ax said:

Interesting numbers you've posted on TM/GC2...also interested what they used to test the accuracy!

 

GOM Inspect.   It's a very high end research grade, high speed, 3d optical system with positional accuracy that's typically around 25 micrometers and ~5k fps.  

To put that into a more meaningful context, that translates to a 95% confidence accuracy of: 0.06 mph for ball velocity, 0.01* for both vert and horizontal launch angles, and 14 rpm for spin.

 

If you want to read the full paper you can find it on line.  Just search for:

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

 

 

And consistency and accuracy are two different things - it sounds like you're more interested in the consistency.   Although I doubt you'll find any numbers for that.

 

Edited July 30, 2021 by Stuart_G

[North Butte]

11 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

GOM Inspect.   It's a very high end research grade, high speed, 3d optical system with positional accuracy that's typically around 25 micrometers and ~5k fps.  

To put that into a more meaningful context, that translates to a 95% confidence accuracy of: 0.06 mph for ball velocity, 0.01* for both vert and horizontal launch angles, and 14 rpm for spin.

 

If you want to read the full paper you can find it on line.  Just search for:

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

 

 

And consistency and accuracy are two different things - it sounds like you're more interested in the consistency.   Although I doubt you'll find any numbers for that.

 

I've downloaded and skimmed the PDF of the article. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

I just wanted to add to your comments the fact that there's a good bit of detail (including B-A plots) going beyond the percentages within certain tolerance ranges reported in the summary table. 

 

My quick look-through did not find any RMS error or mean absolute error tabulations but they may be in there somewhere. That's sort of my own personal quirk though, I think the median differences and so forth that they present are what most people will find useful.

 

Cool study.

[Stuart_G]

51 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Cool study.

 

I know.  Interesting how the accuracy differed between the different clubs.  The only thing they left out was spin axis.

[Sanchez27]

I had preordered a R10 unit on the 14th July as the hype built around this (in the UK).

 

But having done some more reading and research, I’ve cancelled my preorder today and decided to stick with my Rapsodo MLM unit. Garmin’s own literature appears to have changed and indicates bigger tolerance variances, particularly on club data, which was the key attraction for me to this. So I’ll stick with what I have and come back around to this in early 2022, and maybe by then some other companies will have joined the race too.

[ElMacho]

This is a great thread! Thanks to everyone for the info. I pre-ordered the R10 and sold my SC300 on eBay as soon as the new monitor was announced. Luckily, the weather is great, so I've been skipping the range to play par 3s.

 

If it underperforms, I'm sure I'll be able to tell in a few weeks and return it. For now, I expect it to be as good or better than the SC300, which for me, had relatively wide-tolerances.

[Re*Ax]

2 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

GOM Inspect.   It's a very high end research grade, high speed, 3d optical system with positional accuracy that's typically around 25 micrometers and ~5k fps.  

To put that into a more meaningful context, that translates to a 95% confidence accuracy of: 0.06 mph for ball velocity, 0.01* for both vert and horizontal launch angles, and 14 rpm for spin.

 

If you want to read the full paper you can find it on line.  Just search for:

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

 

 

And consistency and accuracy are two different things - it sounds like you're more interested in the consistency.   Although I doubt you'll find any numbers for that.

 

Thanks for this, will check it out, will be a great read I'm sure.

 

Rick Shiels has a new video out and a giveaway in 10 mins....wonder if it's the.....

[Re*Ax]

13 minutes ago, Re*Ax said:

Thanks for this, will check it out, will be a great read I'm sure.

 

Rick Shiels has a new video out and a giveaway in 10 mins....wonder if it's the.....

 

It's not.....

[North Butte]

1 hour ago, Re*Ax said:

 

It's not.....

His mom must have given the same advice as mine, “If you can’t say something nice…”

[Sandhurst241069]

6 hours ago, North Butte said:

His mom must have given the same advice as mine, “If you can’t say something nice…”

This ^^^  the silence is deafening from RS not even a teaser or two from the Garmin ambassador since the pod mention.. together with the moving target in terms of published accuracy etc.. the impression I get is that the unit, while promising longer term, is not there yet. I suspect I will own one eventually .. but will stick with the SC300 a little while longer..

[whumber]

On 7/30/2021 at 5:14 AM, Re*Ax said:

 

Then, I checked the Garmin Website, and now it no longer lists Tolerance for Path or AoA !!!!!!!!!!

 

Hmmmmm.....

 

I know we all know this, but this means I *could* swing perfectly neutral at a shot and this R10 will either display it as a High Block or a Low Pull with those +/- figures, so if they are as per the website I came across the unit is unusable for me, and I will just stick my my old Mevo.

The Garmin website never listed an accuracy value for path of AoA. I do find it kind of hilarious how people are freaking out about the numbers when other manufacturers don't offer any information about the accuracy or precision of their products.

Edited July 31, 2021 by whumber

[North Butte]

2 hours ago, whumber said:

The Garmin website never listed an accuracy value for path of AoA. I do find it kind of hilarious how people are freaking out about the numbers when other manufacturers don't offer any information about the accuracy or precision of their products.

I think they are mostly “freaking out” (which I assume is your phrase for canceling their pre-orders) from the overall lack of information and the whiff of possible vaporware around the product.
 

It is hardly “freaking out” IMO to decide not to be an early adopter based purely on one guy posting breathless hype videos on YouTube. 

[Re*Ax]

4 hours ago, North Butte said:

I think they are mostly “freaking out” (which I assume is your phrase for canceling their pre-orders) from the overall lack of information and the whiff of possible vaporware around the product.
 

It is hardly “freaking out” IMO to decide not to be an early adopter based purely on one guy posting breathless hype videos on YouTube. 

Also Whumber, the website literally did list path and AoA tolerances.

 

you think people just made them up?

 

they were listed by Garmin, and now *poof* they’ve gone 

[prusd]

So Garmin added a new R10 youtube video yesterday.  There isn't much there, but it looks like the units should be arriving any day now.

 

 

[Grig]

They have also released a software update. 

 

https://forums.garmin.com/outdoor-recreation/golf/f/approach-r10/269989/system-software-3-30

 

Changelog:

• Improved adjacent shot rejection for shots outside the designated hitting area
• Improved outdoor club path & attack angle estimations for wedge shots
• Improved outdoor side spin estimation
• Improved indoor launch elevation for wedges

 

[whumber]

5 hours ago, Re*Ax said:

Also Whumber, the website literally did list path and AoA tolerances.

 

you think people just made them up?

 

they were listed by Garmin, and now *poof* they’ve gone 

 

They were only ever listed on the Playbetter website, they were never on Garmin's website; I checked at the time I originally posted the specs from Playbetter on 7/7. I think they got them directly from Garmin but for whatever reason Garmin did not post them on their own product page.

[mgoblue83]

I think you guys are overreacting a bit. There is zero reason to expect Trackman/GCQ level accuracy from a $600 unit.

 

What I am interested in, and what would make this a game changing device for the price is not how accurate is is in terms of +/- degree measurements but how accurate it is in the direction of the measurements.

 

For example:

I don't care if it's +/- 4 degrees for path as long as it is VERY accurate in measuring a left or right path.

I don't care if its +/- 4 degrees of club face as long is it is VERY accurate in determining how the club face is in relation to the path as in "open to the path" or "closed to the path".

 

If this thing is accurate in determining overall path/face relationships then it is a game changer for $600.

 

 

[North Butte]

8 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

I think you guys are overreacting a bit. There is zero reason to expect Trackman/GCQ level accuracy from a $600 unit.

 

What I am interested in, and what would make this a game changing device for the price is not how accurate is is in terms of +/- degree measurements but how accurate it is in the direction of the measurements.

 

For example:

I don't care if it's +/- 4 degrees for path as long as it is VERY accurate in measuring a left or right path.

I don't care if its +/- 4 degrees of club face as long is it is VERY accurate in determining how the club face is in relation to the path as in "open to the path" or "closed to the path".

 

If this thing is accurate in determining overall path/face relationships then it is a game changer for $600.

 

 

I think you have a mistaken impression.  There is no "left or right path" determination other than whether the measured path is positive or negative. And not "open or closed" other than whether the measured face angle is positive or negative.

 

It can't have a large error in the numeric measurement but somehow magically know whether the correct measurement was positive or negative. 

 

You're saying you don't care if the measurement has large errors as long as the measurement is VERY accurate. Those are two opposite things.

[mgoblue83]

9 hours ago, North Butte said:

I think you have a mistaken impression.  There is no "left or right path" determination other than whether the measured path is positive or negative. And not "open or closed" other than whether the measured face angle is positive or negative.

 

It can't have a large error in the numeric measurement but somehow magically know whether the correct measurement was positive or negative. 

 

You're saying you don't care if the measurement has large errors as long as the measurement is VERY accurate. Those are two opposite things.

 

I am deeply familiar with how the numbers work on Trackman and you NEVER see inaccurate positive or negative path and face numbers. They clearly have a degree of error for the exact number but they are always correct in the overall path and face direction and relationship.

 

The R10 is most likely going to be even less accurate for the exact degree reported but it can and should be able to determine positive or negative path and face angles and report the overall path to face relationship as positive or negative. My point was that if it can accurately report a positive or negative face to path relationship (which is should be able to) this thing is an absolute game changer for $600.

[North Butte]

So if the real path is -1 degree you are saying Trackman may say it is -2 or -3 but it is literally impossible for Trackman to say 0 or +1?
 

I don’t believe there is any way for that to be true.