Voice caddie SC300

[JonD]

I am. More of that takes place on Saturday.
That is why I was curious.

Interested in what your testing turns up. I've been really happy with my SC200. Doesn't give a ton of data but it's enough for me.

While I dont think the SkyTrak is greatly accurate, its better than guessing, so thank you.
Yup, showing the same issues with launch angle that I mentioned early on.
Adding that feature and having it be 20+% off is something I struggle to get on board with. I mentioned earlier that it was only a brief testing for me so far though.

That does seem like a large variance...

I've been pondering going down the stats rabbit hole, and upgrading from my SC200 to something more detailed, but haven't found one that I'm super confident is the right fit. Looks like I should wait for now and see how this shakes out. If I had room for a simulator in my house, I'd already be $1000s in the hole.

 

[KaosGolfer]

I just received the SC300 and thought I would do a quick comparison with the SC200 indoors with my 6-iron. I hit maybe 25-30 balls (Pro V1x and Callaway Chrome Plus) and here is my initial impression. The SC300 and SC200 carry distances were really close (generally with 0-2 yards). The SC300 consistently showed about 3-4 Mph less swing speed than the SC200. However, it consistently recorded higher ball speeds by about 4-6 Mph. I thinned a couple of shots early on before I was warmed up and the SC300 showed a launch angle of around 20* (in reality the LA should have been closer to 9-10*). My Hogan Ft.Worth 15 "6-iron" is 28*. I can attest that the launch angle does in fact seem to show on the high side. My actual launch angle with this club is generally in the 14-17* range. The lowest the SC300 showed was 18.8*. So the LA seems to be about 10-25% too high. The reported Apex on the two thinned shots was clearly off while the carry seemed about right for the miss-hits. I was getting reported smash factors or 1.41-1.48 (which seems on the high side for 6-iron) on the SC300 while the SC200 was in the 1.30-1.35. I would expect smash factors in the 1.31-1.41 range for this club. In actual use last year, the SC200 did seem to give low ball speeds and the swing speed seemed about right. I am going to call the company tomorrow and see if we can determine why the numbers seem flipped between the two machines. The SC200 swing speed seems more accurate and the SC300 ball speed seems more accurate. Combining the two would put the smash numbers where I would expect them to be. I will follow up on this post after I talk to the Swing Caddie folks.

Kaos

 

[McLovin]

I just received the SC300 and thought I would do a quick comparison with the SC200 indoors with my 6-iron. I hit maybe 25-30 balls (Pro V1x and Callaway Chrome Plus) and here is my initial impression. The SC300 and SC200 carry distances were really close (generally with 0-2 yards). The SC300 consistently showed about 3-4 Mph less swing speed than the SC200. However, it consistently recorded higher ball speeds by about 4-6 Mph. I thinned a couple of shots early on before I was warmed up and the SC300 showed a launch angle of around 20* (in reality the LA should have been closer to 9-10*). My Hogan Ft.Worth 15 "6-iron" is 28*. I can attest that the launch angle does in fact seem to show on the high side. My actual launch angle with this club is generally in the 14-17* range. The lowest the SC300 showed was 18.8*. So the LA seems to be about 10-25% too high. The reported Apex on the two thinned shots was clearly off while the carry seemed about right for the miss-hits. I was getting reported smash factors or 1.41-1.48 (which seems on the high side for 6-iron) on the SC300 while the SC200 was in the 1.30-1.35. I would expect smash factors in the 1.31-1.41 range for this club. In actual use last year, the SC200 did seem to give low ball speeds and the swing speed seemed about right. I am going to call the company tomorrow and see if we can determine why the numbers seem flipped between the two machines. The SC200 swing speed seems more accurate and the SC300 ball speed seems more accurate. Combining the two would put the smash numbers where I would expect them to be. I will follow up on this post after I talk to the Swing Caddie folks.

Kaos

this is really good info, because you know what your launch and typical swing speed is. so far, i don't think i'll be diving into this unit. bummer, because i was pretty excited about it. maybe i'll just use the thp coupon on budget golf to pick up an sc200.

 

[KaosGolfer]

this is really good info, because you know what your launch and typical swing speed is. so far, i don't think i'll be diving into this unit. bummer, because i was pretty excited about it. maybe i'll just use the thp coupon on budget golf to pick up an sc200.

The more important number for you to know is the ball speed numbers, especially if you are working on driver. At this point (and my opinion is subject to change as I do more testing over the next week or two) I would say the SC300 has a more accurate ball speed number. The two units yield almost identical carry distances on each shot. I did not have one shot where one unit reported materially higher numbers than the other. Most were with 0-1.5 yards (the SC300 yields 1 decimal place while the SC200 rounds). There were a few shots where the SC300 was about 2 yards longer like 177.9 carry to 176 carry kind of reading. One or the other is off on either the swing speed or ball speed. The smash on the SC200 seems a little low especially when I flush one with driver and the SC300 seems to overstate the smash factor (as indicated in my initial test with 6-iron). The cause of the high smash with the SC300 would be the lower swing speed. If you divide the SC300 ball speed by the SC200 swing speed, the smash seems to be pretty much in the expected range. I want to talk to the Company because I want to make sure there are no setup tweaks for the SC300. I have it about 5-6 ft behind the ball and the net is about 7-8 feet in front. They did have me tweak the SC200 a few weeks ago and I got more consistent readings indoors.

Kaos

 

[chas]

I tried mine yesterday and carry distances were spot on. I did think it was overestimating my total distances.

Not sure about launch angle, however I am only using it to try to increase my launch angle with my driver. So I am only looking for an increase of the number from shot to shot and not the number itself.

The big improvement is shot detection on my higher lofted clubs as it never missed a shot where as the sc300 would not get any wedge shots.

It's a good practice tool, hopefully firmware updates sort the problems

 

[JB]

Some testing has taken place and still seeing some really big variables. A couple of things to note. These were tested with real golf balls, Srixon Z-Star XV to be exact.

Carry distance is similar to what we saw in SC200. A device that was pretty darn close to that of GCQuad and our testing backs that up again.

Swing speed is off by 2-3 MPH both plus and minus. Which I found odd considering carry was pretty close.

Smash factor with irons is way off. In fact it should just be removed until fixed through firmware.

Launch Angle and Apex are interesting. On one or two shots you say “yeah pretty cool”, but on the other 7-8 out of 10 you say “what is going on”. Apex being off by as much as 30 feet and launch angle being off by as much as 6 degrees.

It’s worth noting that we are comparing a $500 device to something much more expensive but when tracking accuracy to me that is important. If the new features are what has you interested in the SC300, I would personally be cautious and see if the company talks of an update.

 

[mancest]

Some testing has taken place and still seeing some really big variables. A couple of things to note. These were tested with real golf balls, Srixon Z-Star XV to be exact.

Carry distance is similar to what we saw in SC200. A device that was pretty darn close to that of GCQuad and our testing backs that up again.

Swing speed is off by 2-3 MPH both plus and minus. Which I found odd considering carry was pretty close.

Smash factor with irons is way off. In fact it should just be removed until fixed through firmware.

Launch Angle and Apex are interesting. On one or two shots you say “yeah pretty cool”, but on the other 7-8 out of 10 you say “what is going on”. Apex being off by as much as 30 feet and launch angle being off by as much as 6 degrees.

It’s worth noting that we are comparing a $500 device to something much more expensive but when tracking accuracy to me that is important. If the new features are what has you interested in the SC300, I would personally be cautious and see if the company talks of an update.

What I wondered about with smash factor on irons, is that because the swing speed was registering lower by several miles an hour? Because that is what I saw with my brief testing (but can't verify as I don't have a GC quad) that SS was registering below what I would expect, but carry was probably pretty close to accurate... so smash is automatically inflated.

Thanks for the info. I am curious about the firmware update, and what they can really do with the hardware that is in these units.

 

[H8tobogie]

Some testing has taken place and still seeing some really big variables. A couple of things to note. These were tested with real golf balls, Srixon Z-Star XV to be exact.

Carry distance is similar to what we saw in SC200. A device that was pretty darn close to that of GCQuad and our testing backs that up again.

Swing speed is off by 2-3 MPH both plus and minus. Which I found odd considering carry was pretty close.

Smash factor with irons is way off. In fact it should just be removed until fixed through firmware.

Launch Angle and Apex are interesting. On one or two shots you say “yeah pretty cool”, but on the other 7-8 out of 10 you say “what is going on”. Apex being off by as much as 30 feet and launch angle being off by as much as 6 degrees.

It’s worth noting that we are comparing a $500 device to something much more expensive but when tracking accuracy to me that is important. If the new features are what has you interested in the SC300, I would personally be cautious and see if the company talks of an update.

IMO, this would be a frustrating experience at the range. I would end up spending too much time trying to figure out if the reading was accurate and might even try to alter what I am working on due to faulty data. I would prefer just watching my ball flight, impact location on the club, laser some targets, and just enjoy my range time until a trusted device hits the market. Hopefully some firmware updates will correct some of the issues.

Thanks for comparing this to the Quad, JB!

 

[JB]

What I wondered about with smash factor on irons, is that because the swing speed was registering lower by several miles an hour? Because that is what I saw with my brief testing (but can't verify as I don't have a GC quad) that SS was registering below what I would expect, but carry was probably pretty close to accurate... so smash is automatically inflated.

Thanks for the info. I am curious about the firmware update, and what they can really do with the hardware that is in these units.

It could be. Swing speed is definitely off by a bit. It was interesting during testing, our friend Charlie was really hitting the driver well. Some of the time, it was as if the SC300 was mirroring the GCQuad. Which was cool. Others, it was just way off. That is what is concerning to me personally. If it were just off say one way or another, something could be tweaked software wise to fix it. We saw one register 96 feet Apex with 14.8 launch on GCQuad and then have 67 feet of Apex and 12.1 launch on SC300.

 

[JB]

IMO, this would be a frustrating experience at the range. I would end up spending too much time trying to figure out if the reading was accurate and might even try to alter what I am working on due to faulty data. I would prefer just watching my ball flight, impact location on the club, laser some targets, and just enjoy my range time until a trusted device hits the market. Hopefully some firmware updates will correct some of the issues.

Thanks for comparing this to the Quad, JB!

I totally understand that. I think when it comes to distances, these devices can really help. I think in time, we will get to the point where they can do a lot more as well. In the end, we honestly have no idea of what is accurate and what isn't. We learn to trust things like Trackman and GCQuad because they are considered the gold standard. It could be why I like camera based systems so much.

 

[fuffle master]

Some testing has taken place and still seeing some really big variables. A couple of things to note. These were tested with real golf balls, Srixon Z-Star XV to be exact.

Carry distance is similar to what we saw in SC200. A device that was pretty darn close to that of GCQuad and our testing backs that up again.

Swing speed is off by 2-3 MPH both plus and minus. Which I found odd considering carry was pretty close.

Smash factor with irons is way off. In fact it should just be removed until fixed through firmware.

Launch Angle and Apex are interesting. On one or two shots you say “yeah pretty cool”, but on the other 7-8 out of 10 you say “what is going on”. Apex being off by as much as 30 feet and launch angle being off by as much as 6 degrees.

It’s worth noting that we are comparing a $500 device to something much more expensive but when tracking accuracy to me that is important. If the new features are what has you interested in the SC300, I would personally be cautious and see if the company talks of an update.

I have seen many good posts about the sc200. Did you notice similar issues on smash factor on that product when first tested? Was there a software update or just provided more accurate numbers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mancest]

It could be. Swing speed is definitely off by a bit. It was interesting during testing, our friend Charlie was really hitting the driver well. Some of the time, it was as if the SC300 was mirroring the GCQuad. Which was cool. Others, it was just way off. That is what is concerning to me personally. If it were just off say one way or another, something could be tweaked software wise to fix it. We saw one register 96 feet Apex with 14.8 launch on GCQuad and then have 67 feet of Apex and 12.1 launch on SC300.

If the carry distance is accurate on most of the shots I will keep this unit as it would suit my needs just fine. While I would like to get all the readings to be accurate it is the reason I tell people at the range when they ask about my launch monitor (Mevo before the sc300) I tell them to wait. I have no doubt the technology will get there, but for now it isn't worth the money to most of us.

 

[obedt]

Looks like one of those scenarios where it sounds too good to be true because it really is too good to be true. Hoping it's not a mechanical issue and something that can be buttoned up by firmware, but going to stay away until there's confirmation.

Thanks for taking the time to run through the analysis.

 

[Tandy]

Some testing has taken place and still seeing some really big variables. A couple of things to note. These were tested with real golf balls, Srixon Z-Star XV to be exact.

Carry distance is similar to what we saw in SC200. A device that was pretty darn close to that of GCQuad and our testing backs that up again.

Swing speed is off by 2-3 MPH both plus and minus. Which I found odd considering carry was pretty close.

Smash factor with irons is way off. In fact it should just be removed until fixed through firmware.

Launch Angle and Apex are interesting. On one or two shots you say “yeah pretty cool”, but on the other 7-8 out of 10 you say “what is going on”. Apex being off by as much as 30 feet and launch angle being off by as much as 6 degrees.

It’s worth noting that we are comparing a $500 device to something much more expensive but when tracking accuracy to me that is important. If the new features are what has you interested in the SC300, I would personally be cautious and see if the company talks of an update.

Am following this thread with real interest in buying the 200 or 3. Am not at all familiar with how this stuff works but just a thought here. Is there any way that the signals are messing each other up if two units are standing side by side and taking the same readings?

 

[McLovin]

decision made: sc200, and if they fix the sc300 i'll think about it again. thanks for the info @jb.

 

[JB]

Am following this thread with real interest in buying the 200 or 3. Am not at all familiar with how this stuff works but just a thought here. Is there any way that the signals are messing each other up if two units are standing side by side and taking the same readings?

SHouldnt be. It was the same way we tested the SC200. They do not read the ball or club the same way.

 

[Daddio]

Thanks for comparing JB. I can certainly see where the launch/peak inaccuracies would be especially concerning to indoor users. I'm able to do all my testing outdoors (I have an SC200). So I'm able to jot down my observations of peak, curvature, accuracy, etc... alongside the numbers my SC200 spits out for each shot. From what I'm seeing here, the greatest advantage I'd get by upgrading to SC300 is that it appears to be orders of magnitude better on the short shots. My SC200 rarely even senses SW/LW shots and when it does it's nowhere near accurate. Plus SC200 specs state it's bottom range is 35 yards. In that Barnhill video (earlier in this thread) his buddy fatted a flop attempt and the SC300 spit out 11 yards, which looked to be pretty darn close to where that shot flew.

I get around the short shot limitations with my SC200 by playing to measured targets vs even using the SC200 to measure. It works well enough for me that I don't need to pay for the upgrade at this time.

 

[kevin81002]

I'd still love to get one to test out. Basically I want something somewhat cost effective that I can mess around with. But haven't decided if that'll be the sc300 or skytrak yet. Paying 15-25k for a trackman or cgquad just isn't in the cards for me.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[McLovin]

I'd still love to get one to test out. Basically I want something somewhat cost effective that I can mess around with. But haven't decided if that'll be the sc300 or skytrak yet. Paying 15-25k for a trackman or cgquad just isn't in the cards for me.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

i'll go in on a trackman with you. you buy the unit, i'll pay the coast-to-coast shipping when we take turns. deal?

 

[JB]

i'll go in on a trackman with you. you buy the unit, i'll pay the coast-to-coast shipping when we take turns. deal?

Interesting note. Just about every shaft company we work with has switched to their main unit being a Foresight.

 

[c0ncept]

Thank you JB!

 

[McLovin]

Interesting note. Just about every shaft company we work with has switched to their main unit being a Foresight.

i wonder if that's because they do most of their testing indoors?

 

[JB]

i wonder if that's because they do most of their testing indoors?

Partly. Indoors it's not much of a comparison.

 

[kevin81002]

Interesting note. Just about every shaft company we work with has switched to their main unit being a Foresight.

Due to it being that much better for indoor testing?

 

[kevin81002]

Nevermind. Saw the answer above.