Related

Putting Speed/Distances

5133373

I agree with the other thread that a putting green feature would be really nice. Since the on-course practice feature was introduced, I've been practicing putting there. The R50 seems to register ball speed and angle pretty well, but it seems like something in the distance formula is off as you attempt longer putts.

I'm mostly trying to work on speed and start line, so I found a long flat spot on a green (Bethpage Black hole 3) and experimented on ball speed vs distance. I have speed set to stimp 11 to match my home course. Here is what I've found in trying to map speeds to distance on the R50:

5' 2.8mph
10' 4.0 mph
15' 5.2 mph
20' 6.5 mph
30' 9.3 mph
40' 12.1 mph
50' 15.0 mph
60' 18.0 mph

A stimpmeter rolls a ball at 4.1 mph (11 foot rollout = stimp 11). So on the low end it's fairly accurate. It also matches my real-life feel for distance. But once you get out beyond 20', it seems like you have to hit the ball way too hard on the R50.  After practicing on the R50 a couple times, I found I was blasting longer putts way past the hole on a real course. 

I haven't found anything official online that corresponds speed/distance/stimp, but I did find a site where someone mapped it out on GSPro (link to chart & data). For stimp 11, the speeds they provide are this:

5' 2.7 mph
10' 3.9 mph
15' 5.0 mph
20' 6.0 mph
30' 7.9 mph
40' 9.5 mph
50' 11.0 mph
60' 12.5 mph

Not sure if these are perfectly accurate to real-life, but they seem more realistic.

I don't really want to, but I could take the R50 to my course and put it out on the putting green and hit some 30-60 footers and see what the R50 shows for speed. I guess I wanted to see if anyone else has noticed needing to hit longer putts much harder on the R50 than they normally would. There also has to be some real world data out there on this but so far I haven't found it. 

  • 0

    interesting, you might be right. Some thoughts.

    The kinetic energy stored in ball goes with square of the velocity. This energy get lost by friction with air and ground when the ball moves. when speed doubles kinetic energy goes up 4 times. If the energy lost by friction is lineair with speed than to get the ball 4 times the distance the speed only has to increase with factor 2. The speed lost by friction will dependent on several factors and may not be lineair but at low speeds factors like air resistance, which is increasing with square of the velocity, will be small and friction by ground  which is lineair with distance will be much bigger. Of course roughness of the green is also a factor that may vary. Anyhow in your second table we see to get 20' you need 6 mph, to get 60' you need 12,5 mph. So three times the distance only needs double speed, which makes sense. Garmin needs 3 times the speed for 20' (too big)

  • 0 in reply to Fvdw

    Exactly what I was thinking....  ;)

    But basically, yeah, on the Garmin the change to speed required seems to be going to in the wrong direction as the distance increases.

    I really do think there's just a problem with the formula. 

    I'll also note that the readout on the Garmin for Total Distance doesn't seem to work at all when I'm putting. I hit a putt that rolled exactly 60' on Bethpage #3. Ball Speed = 18.2, Total Distance = 20.0 feet. Not sure if that's related or a separate issue. 

  • 0 in reply to 5133373

    Same findings here. 

    GSPro is way more accurate. Not sure why Garmin can’t figure it out.

  • 0 in reply to Wntrglf32

    Thanks, good to get some confirmation.

    I don't want to mess with another device so I don't use GSPro. Hope Garmin looks into this. Should be a pretty simple fix if it's just a math issue. 

  • 0

    WRT to putting, I find the hole itself to be really uncooperative. Like, an 8-footer in the back of the cup should be the intent. But instead I find myself having to tap it extremely softly to get it to not bounce over. 

    The problem this creates is a calibration inconsistency between sim and course. 

    anybody else feel the same way?