Voice Caddie SC300

Thread starter #1
Joined
Jul 28, 2018
Messages
272
Unfortunately this is a very brief review due to time constraints but a couple of people did ask for me to provide feedback so thought i'd pop it in here.

The unit itself I actually like, fits in my bag, easy to set-up and interfaces well with the app which I personally didn't have any issue with whilst using a range of the features. Worked well with my apple devices ( I don't believe app is available on android as of yet) and the unit screen gives all the information you need.


So

First I took this to the practice ground to get used to the system before I compared it against GC2 at the local driving range. This is where i mainly used a few of the functions of the system and looked at the app in a a bit more detail and played around with the unit itself to set the loft of my clubs etc. It's quite user friendly, has plenty of stats and I didn't personally experience and major issues but I normally get on with tech quite well. The target system is quite fun and i'd imagine some people could add an extra layer to their practice sessions to maintain focus and keep it enjoyable.

Then

Off to the driving range for the test in data, had this set-up behind me and was hitting from a mat into the range, so I raised the unit position to match, ready to compare against the GC2 in the same environment.

I didn't know at time of purchase but I do now know that launch angle has a tolerance of 20% I found that I could reach and in cases exceed this tolerance one way or the other at times, this can obviously have a dramatic effect on the readings and itself is a huge flaw in the system.

There is lack of spin feature so I can only assume that based on the loft and club selection you are choosing the device applies an average spin rate. This is a feature they claim will be introduced pending a firmware update however a feature that isn't released with the unit on launch I wouldn't hold out much hope for. I'm a high spin, high launch player this unit as a result is flawed for someone like me and yields very different results to the GC2 as i was just pushing tolerances constantly.

I'll summarise below a few areas:

Driver and 3 Wood:
I was getting on average 30 yards additional carry with the driver against GC2, 3 Wood around 20 yards. Ball speed was always faster on GC300 and in one of the worse results there was a 14mph discrepancy however typically this data point wasn't terrible usually up to 5mph faster. Launch Angle is what skewed everything. 12 degree launch angle on GC2 was picking up at 14-15 on the SC300. This continued throughout, my launch angle barely ever matched or even compared it was always a few degrees out.

Long to Mid Irons:
Much the same I could get 20 yards additional carry with the longer irons and ball speed always seemed on the high side, apex was up and down and seemed to not really provide any consistent data. Launch was closer but still on average 2 degree out.

Mid to Short Irons:
Surprisingly not as bad, got better as the irons got shorter. Ball speed was more accurate, still on the high side however and the apex height tolerance was more consistent however still out (i can hit super high). i can only assume this just didn't have such huge impact at these shorter carry distances. Still carry distance was out typically by 2-3 yards.

Wedges:
I found the device a lot more useful at shorter range, it was reasonably accurate sub 120 yards however occasionally would give some obscure results that were up to 5 yards out on a shot that didn't exceed 100 yards. Typically though with wedges it was within a yard sometimes 2, however apex height here still was +/- around 10% on average against GC2.

So to summarise the unit is great itself in my opinion with good features and display and app interface, the data for me however is just too unreliable. My launch characteristics and high spin are something this unit can't accurately calculate with it's applied averages, resulting in poor data.

I'd be interested to see how someone with a low/medium trajectory and maybe average spin would fair in comparisons it may be a lot more accurate and it may not be a bad purchase in that case to give a general idea. If however you need precision, reliable data to learn from and compare over a period of time i'd honestly stick with Trackman, GC2 or GCQ etc.

I will continue to hire out and use the GC2 when I need this information, unfortunately I won't be keeping the SC300. Great for the Ego, not great to get dialled in for me at least.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
57,788
Location
Bracknell - Berkshire
Great, just saved me £470... ;)
My thinking. I like the idea of a portable and affordable launch monitor like the SC300 but I still think, and the OP backs this up in the write up, there is a way for this sort of technology to go yet before it really produces numbers that can compare to a GC2 etc. It will never be as accurate. I accept that but I do think these devices can be better in time
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
15,785
Location
Highlands
My thinking. I like the idea of a portable and affordable launch monitor like the SC300 but I still think, and the OP backs this up in the write up, there is a way for this sort of technology to go yet before it really produces numbers that can compare to a GC2 etc. It will never be as accurate. I accept that but I do think these devices can be better in time
as ive said before Homer, read the post before commenting, its inaccurate comp to the GC2 so why bother, unless you just want to flatter yourself
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
57,788
Location
Bracknell - Berkshire
as ive said before Homer, read the post before commenting, its inaccurate comp to the GC2 so why bother, unless you just want to flatter yourself
And read what I said. There's a real opportunity for this market to grow in the same way as Game Golf, Arcoss and the other devices that provide stats. It needs to be improve considerable and the OP's review highlights too big a difference between this device and a GC and I said it will never be as accurate but if these margins are significantly reduced (carry distance etc) then it would be worth investigating further. At the moment though it's clear there are too may discrepancies. As often with the case, you're looking for an argument where one doesn't exist so I'll leave you to it
 
Thread starter #7
Joined
Jul 28, 2018
Messages
272
Great, just saved me £470... ;)
If I’ve saved one person from kicking themselves that’s good enough for me. Fortunately someone is willing to take it off my hands. I think they want the ego numbers to share and pat themselves on the back with.

Good write up and helps cross that one off the birthday list. I'm intrigued by the Flightscope MeVo as well now just need someone to buy one and review it for me:ROFLMAO:
I’d honestly imagine the Mevo is a bit better as it’s at least got the spin rate data point which this is currently guessing. They just seem hard to get hold of over here.

It’s proven that such devices at the high end can accurately calculate information but this is applying averages to crucial data so it’s never going to be suitably accurate.
 
Thread starter #8
Joined
Jul 28, 2018
Messages
272
Good write up and helps cross that one off the birthday list. I'm intrigued by the Flightscope MeVo as well now just need someone to buy one and review it for me:ROFLMAO:
Here's a comparison I stumbled across....


SC300 vs Mevo initial evaluation after a few sessions with both. I only used them outdoors, full swings (did not try short game setting on mevo yet). Did not need dots on balls for MEVO.

Carry Yardage - Both struggle with lofted clubs to get an accurate real carry distance reading. I found both underestimated LW and SW (60 and 56*) carry distances substantially. With the SC300 being slightly better. At the Gap wedge and on down in lofts both machines worked fine and had more accurate numbers. With the Mevo being slightly more accurate and the SC300 still overestimating carry distances in the cooler temps. It seems the Mevo was able to get better numbers through the irons.

The only issue I had with the Mevo is it seems to overestimate swing speed over 100 mph. I need to look more into this and see if there is a fix or a length to place the machine to correct this. But I would say it overestimated my swing speed by 3-5 mph. For example, I would swing at 104 on SC300 and it would say 107-108 on Mevo. Swings at 105 on SC300 would be 109-110 on Mevo. But swings at 100 on SC300 would be around 100 on Mevo. The SS on the Sc300 is in line with the fittings I have done.

I am leaning heavily towards the MEVO but need more time (MEVO is better for size, app, and spin). The reasons I am leaning towards the Mevo are the size, the SC300 is very portable, but it does take up space/weight in my bag and as one who likes to walk I would have to remove this between practice sessions and playing sessions. Which means at my advancing age (LOL) I would likely forget it at home when I go to practice once in a while. While the Mevo probably weighs the same as 2-3 golf balls and takes up little space. If you want to use the units as a standalone the SC300 is great in that respect (you can't use the MEVO without the app), but I like using the app with both. The MEVO's app is much more user-friendly (and one thing I really like is that I could still play my music while using the MEVO app, and with the SC300 you cannot use the music on the iPhone while using the app, which is important to me). I think the SC300 app still needs work and they probably rolled it out too early. I also found the MEVO app easier to navigate and organize my data, plus being able to upload it online and view my organized files is great. MEVO obviously has the spin, while the SC300 does not. I am not sure if it is 100% accurate, but the value in this is that it registers when spin is up or down, so I still get input on my swing, and which was a "spinny" swing and which wasn't. It also gives nice feedback on driver settings, I can see which setting spins and launches differently. May not be totally dialed in for optimizing, but as you become more familiar with your personal results, you can use the numbers in relation to each other to make determinations.

Overall I think both are very comparable as far as the information they provide. Nothing is going to be perfect, no matter how much you spend. I have found that so far have the machines and the data they provide have helped me develop my swing, and has given me valuable input on distances and effort in my swing. I am learning which swing elements are providing the most efficiency in my swing, and as far as my game goes, which movements are working correctly and which are killing my swing.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
15,785
Location
Highlands
Here's a comparison I stumbled across....


SC300 vs Mevo initial evaluation after a few sessions with both. I only used them outdoors, full swings (did not try short game setting on mevo yet). Did not need dots on balls for MEVO.

Carry Yardage - Both struggle with lofted clubs to get an accurate real carry distance reading. I found both underestimated LW and SW (60 and 56*) carry distances substantially. With the SC300 being slightly better. At the Gap wedge and on down in lofts both machines worked fine and had more accurate numbers. With the Mevo being slightly more accurate and the SC300 still overestimating carry distances in the cooler temps. It seems the Mevo was able to get better numbers through the irons.

The only issue I had with the Mevo is it seems to overestimate swing speed over 100 mph. I need to look more into this and see if there is a fix or a length to place the machine to correct this. But I would say it overestimated my swing speed by 3-5 mph. For example, I would swing at 104 on SC300 and it would say 107-108 on Mevo. Swings at 105 on SC300 would be 109-110 on Mevo. But swings at 100 on SC300 would be around 100 on Mevo. The SS on the Sc300 is in line with the fittings I have done.

I am leaning heavily towards the MEVO but need more time (MEVO is better for size, app, and spin). The reasons I am leaning towards the Mevo are the size, the SC300 is very portable, but it does take up space/weight in my bag and as one who likes to walk I would have to remove this between practice sessions and playing sessions. Which means at my advancing age (LOL) I would likely forget it at home when I go to practice once in a while. While the Mevo probably weighs the same as 2-3 golf balls and takes up little space. If you want to use the units as a standalone the SC300 is great in that respect (you can't use the MEVO without the app), but I like using the app with both. The MEVO's app is much more user-friendly (and one thing I really like is that I could still play my music while using the MEVO app, and with the SC300 you cannot use the music on the iPhone while using the app, which is important to me). I think the SC300 app still needs work and they probably rolled it out too early. I also found the MEVO app easier to navigate and organize my data, plus being able to upload it online and view my organized files is great. MEVO obviously has the spin, while the SC300 does not. I am not sure if it is 100% accurate, but the value in this is that it registers when spin is up or down, so I still get input on my swing, and which was a "spinny" swing and which wasn't. It also gives nice feedback on driver settings, I can see which setting spins and launches differently. May not be totally dialed in for optimizing, but as you become more familiar with your personal results, you can use the numbers in relation to each other to make determinations.

Overall I think both are very comparable as far as the information they provide. Nothing is going to be perfect, no matter how much you spend. I have found that so far have the machines and the data they provide have helped me develop my swing, and has given me valuable input on distances and effort in my swing. I am learning which swing elements are providing the most efficiency in my swing, and as far as my game goes, which movements are working correctly and which are killing my swing.
looks like the mevo is also double the price
 

Dibby

Assistant Pro
Joined
Feb 9, 2018
Messages
351
Consumer technology is improving, but obviously not quite there yet, doubt it will be long though.

Does anyone know why hardware like Trackman and GC Quad are so expensive, and why these companies don't make consumer level products based on previous generations?

Both have been around for quite some time now, so it seems the price is just kept high by the proprietary nature of the devices, rather than the fact they have particularly expensive hardware. Compared with other fields of computing, where prices drop hugely after the initial innovation period, where R&D and software\firmware developed costs are recouped. Is there a reason why we aren't seeing equivalents for earlier generation trackman and GC2 devices on the market at consumer devices? Both of these would be more accurate than current consumer level devices.

I wonder if there exists or ever will exist an open source project to make such a device, I assume it could be done on something like a raspberry pi, with a small for-profit business attached to make the radar and camera hardware.
 
Thread starter #12
Joined
Jul 28, 2018
Messages
272
Consumer technology is improving, but obviously not quite there yet, doubt it will be long though.

Does anyone know why hardware like Trackman and GC Quad are so expensive, and why these companies don't make consumer level products based on previous generations?

Both have been around for quite some time now, so it seems the price is just kept high by the proprietary nature of the devices, rather than the fact they have particularly expensive hardware. Compared with other fields of computing, where prices drop hugely after the initial innovation period, where R&D and software\firmware developed costs are recouped. Is there a reason why we aren't seeing equivalents for earlier generation trackman and GC2 devices on the market at consumer devices? Both of these would be more accurate than current consumer level devices.

I wonder if there exists or ever will exist an open source project to make such a device, I assume it could be done on something like a raspberry pi, with a small for-profit business attached to make the radar and camera hardware.
The price of such units definitely isn't driven by the technology, moreso the market forces. Just think every pro and his dog on each of the tours is using a trackman or GCQ during practice, club pro's and fitters are continuously buying, upgrading and replacing theres to stay relevant. I don't think the big boys really need to bother with the consumer level. If so many professionals weren't buying several of these units at such hefty price tags they would likely have to make a shift.

For now I think there just enjoying lapping up the cream until their forced to cater for the consumers which I doubt will happen anytime soon.

Flightscope definitely reduced the prices of some of their units once Foresight and Trackman started dominating the professional market to try and entice the consumer market however the prices for some of the top level stuff is out of reach of most casual golfers who'd rather spend £500 on an Epic Flash than a launch monitor.

EDIT:

In 2018 700 tour players were using trackman at $20k per pop, I'm almost certain a lot of players have several devices to however assuming all of them have just one thats $14m right there. This doesn't even take into consideration the thousands of units at golf clubs, driving ranges etc.
 
Top