Test: Foresight GC Quad vs. Trackman 4
We saw the Foresight GC Quad for the first time at the PGA Show in Orlando.
It was one of the truly new products that we got to see this year so it was no surprise for there to be a bit of a buzz around it.
On demo day and for the rest of the PGA Show, the Foresight stand was very busy.
We had a little play with the Foresight GC Quad in Orlando but were very keen to get it back to the Golf Shack at Moor Allerton in Leeds and test it more thoroughly.
As you will have seen from our previous videos, we do all our current testing using Trackman 4.
So we thought a comparison test between the Foresight GC Quad and Trackman 4 would be really interesting…
So this allowed us to set both up at the same time and have recordings for each launch monitor with the same shot.
We used our Anonymous Big Hitter to hit the shots as he rarely misses the middle of the club face – apart from when we ask him specifically for a heel or a toe strike.
— James Savage (@JamesSavageFJ) February 9, 2017
To give us a good mix of data, the ABH used a pitching wedge, 6-iron and driver and we captured the data of five shots from each: three out of the middle, one out of the heel and one out of the toe.
Foresight GC Quad vs. Trackman 4 – The technology
Trackman uses radar technology to actually track the ball and see what the ball is doing.
It also uses club path information along with the ball information to give data on how the club has been delivered.
We’ve always seen it as the most accurate launch monitor for ball data as it is actually tracking the ball.
On club data there is a degree of calculation as the radar cannot see exactly where the ball has been struck on the face.
The Foresight GC Quad is being touted at the world’s first quadrascopic launch monitor.
Four cameras take 200 pictures as the club impacts the ball and then calculates what the ball is going to do.
What’s cool about the GC Quad is it also has the ability to accurately measure where the ball impacts on the club face.
Previously with GC 2 you would need the additional HMT kit and software to measure strike.
New features of the GC Quad include an expanded ball capture area and a barometric sensor allowing for instant changes to weather and altitude conditions.
Foresight GC Quad vs. Trackman 4 – The results
We were really pleased with just how similar the ball data was.
To us, this represented an improvement in the data from the GC Quad, compared to GC 2, as we had previously found the carry numbers to be more generous.
When looking at ball speed, carry and spin – there really wasn’t much difference at all between the Foresight GC Quad and Trackman 4.
This told us that the GC Quad was doing a very good job at calculating the ball data as it was the same as a device that was actually tracking the ball.
The differences in carry with the pitching wedge and the 6-iron were within a couple of yards.
With the driver it was five yards at the most. Spin rates were differing by 100-150 rpm at the most.
The main area we noticed differences were with the club data.
Sometimes there was a couple of degrees difference between the angle of attack and the face to path data.
Foresight GC Quad vs. Trackman 4 – Conclusion
In my opinion, the club data from the QC Quad has the edge on the Trackman data as Trackman can’t see the clubface at impact.
There really wasn’t any noticeable difference in the ball data.
The fact that the GC Quad was able to give the same carry and spin data as a launch monitor which is tracking the ball is very impressive.
Another reason why we previously found Trackman to be more accurate was the fact it would take conditions on the day into account.
The GC Quad now has a built in thermometer/barometer which will adjust the carry numbers accordingly.
This was a completely fair test and we can only comment on the data which has been included in our video above.