PDGA disc regulations and approval question

As an assymetrical unevenly weighted disc, does PDGA approval of the Epic set a bad precedent that opens the door to discs that aren't really discs at all?

[Sharky]

It probably would have slipped by me, but considering what Dave D. has previously posted and a little time to think about it, I now agree 100% asymmetrical discs stink! What's next an aerobie on the course, that is one site I hate to see :mad:

not to mention the Epic sucks....plastic dented when I looked at it funny

yeah, the epic sucks. its not even a disc in my opinion due to it being asymetrical. definately not a good direction for disc design to go in.

[Lyle O Ross]

Actually, it is my belief that the Epic is already illegal but I'm honestly not positive. Here is what I'm thinking

802.04 "A player is specifically prohibited from using any artificial device that changes the position of the disc in the player's hand or artificially lengthens any of the player’s throwing levers (fingers, wrist, arm, shoulder, etc.).

The problem is that this isn't quite covered in the rules. However, what the Epic does is move the center of gravity of the disc further out on the forearm lever. Essentially this increases the length of the forearm artificially (an illegal advantage) without changing the length of the forearm. Furthermore, by having that extra lump of weight out there you increase the snap. It is harder to get it moving (momentum) but once it gets going at your normal speed you've achieved an increase in acceleration. As Dave Dunipace has so expertly pointed out, acceleration is the key. This gives the user of the Epic an unfair advantage. If this is correct, you might as well place a rubber strap on the player’s upper arm that moves it more quickly through the throw. It is my belief that this is why players can sometimes throw the Epic further. Of course the disc, from what I hear, is so unpredictable, that it isn't worth the advantage.

[circle_2]

How does the Epic fly without wobbling?
Aerobie obviously did their research and petitioning...cause it's available, legal, and friggin' weird!
Makes me want to unretire my overhand throw from 11 years ago...jeez, that would hurt... :( On second thought... :p

[Lyle O Ross]

I'm not sure I completely agree. Mistakes are easy to make. I've worked in Academics and in a business highly regulated by the Government. Some of the things I've seen truly astound me.

Given the workload of the PDGA and the BOD, if they didn't make some mistakes I would be shocked. I think that the Epic probably does wobble but that it's spinning fast enough to bring it around the center of the disc not the center of gravity. As the rotation slows the rotation moves out to the center of gravity and the flight characteristics of the disc change, which is why you've seen comments from people that read it has different stabilities early and late in its flight. When the disc is at the end of its flight it is harder to see whether it is wobbling so people don't notice so much.

Of course this is all speculation, I've never thrown the disc. However, it fits what little bit I know about physics.

[mcthumber]

I, on the other hand, love it.

Thrown at the right time and the right place, it saves me strokes. I've not noticed the "denting" problem. Could you elaborate?

--Mike

ever hit anything harder than grass with it...that thing had more dings and dents than a $6.99 DX special, I have a road about 350ft from where I practice tee in my front yard, I hit the road once and never threw the disc again, no amount of sanding could repair the edge...If they made it out of harder plastic then maybe...I did see some improvement in distance, but wasnt worth the investment.

[mcthumber]

Actually, other than a branch or two, no, I haven't it anything but grass/earth with it. Because so many factors influence its flight, I typically only throw it in an open field situation. I throw it overhand so it ends up rolling forward when it hits the ground so I stay away from throwing it in tight shots where a bad roll would be disasterous.

Thanks.....--Mike

I am fairly new to disc golf and the PDGA, do you know how many people are on the committee that approved the Epic and what the thought process behind approving it was?
Did they anticipate the problems that approving this disc for PDGA play may cause down the road?

[boru]

This gives the user of the Epic an unfair advantage. ... Of course the disc, from what I hear, is so unpredictable, that it isn't worth the advantage.



This is at the heart of what I've been wondering all along. If the Epic's increased distance comes with a decrease in reliability, then this is less an unfair advantage than a simple tradeoff. In fact, it's essentially the same tradeoff we make whenever we decide to throw a driver instead of a midrange.

What's next an aerobie on the course, that is one site I hate to see :mad:



Nope. The Aerobie does not meet standards (fails flight plate, rim depth, and (we believe) plasticity requirements). In fact, before his death, Ed submitted Aerobies as DGA drivers, and they were denied.

I am fairly new to disc golf and the PDGA, do you know how many people are on the committee that approved the Epic and what the thought process behind approving it was?
Did they anticipate the problems that approving this disc for PDGA play may cause down the road?



There are 4 or 5 people on the tech standards committee, but there is only one person who decides whether or not a disc meets the standards.

The committee writes the specs (which have to be approved by the BOD), but when new discs are submitted one person tests those discs against the standards without re-consulting the rest of the committee. There is currently no standard requiring symetrical discs, so the Epic passed.

Actually, it is my belief that the Epic is already illegal

802.04 "A player is specifically prohibited from using any artificial device..."



That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

The PDGA specifically says that the Epic is an approved disc. Therefore, it's hard to call that disc an "artificial device", isn't it? After all, aren't all discs artificial devices under the same context?

[james_mccaine]

There are 4 or 5 people on the tech standards committee, but there is only one person who decides whether or not a disc meets the standards.



That's an odd arrangement. I don't know squat about the standards, but there was apparent disagreement on this particular disc. I find it surprising that one person makes the final decision on this important matter, yet the BOD makes all the other important decisions.

Where was there apparent disagreement?

Dave Dunnipace thinks that discs such as the Epic should not be disallowed. Dave is entitled to this opinion, however, he is not on the tech standards committee, nor is he on the BOD.

What is odd about the arrangement? Would you have the board get together every month and approve/disaprove discs as a group? That would be pretty silly.

I'll repeat. There is nothing in the current specs requiring discs to be symetrical, and there are no measurments that the Epic violates, therefore, it passes all the current specs. Don't like the specs? Petition the Tech standars committee to rewrite them.

[discette]

[james_mccaine]

Alright, I was sloppy. I assumed that since Dave D. is familiar with the standards, and that since he had some questions regarding the Epic's approval, that it is not as cut and dried as your portrayal. I still suspect there is an "alternative viewpoint" on this matter.

I'll agree that the BOD need not look at the details of every run-of-the-mill disc, just merely sign off on "staff's recommendations." However, I don't think the Epic was run-of-the-mill at all and its approval is significant enough that the decision should be made by the BOD.

<FORM METHOD=POST ACTION="http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/dopoll.php"><INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME="pollname" VALUE="1070892377Discette">


Should PDGA specifications be changed to disallow assymetrical rimmed discs?





thanks for the poll, discette. to understand what it was asking, I had to translate it to ask:

</font> should the PDGA specifications be changed to state that the rim of a disc *must* be symmetrical?

From what I have read, it sounds like as a disc design expert, Dave D. anticipates a host of problems approving the Epic presages, and he thought that symmetry -- though not explicitly called for -- was an implicit part of the pdga definition of a disc.

Imo, assymetrical discs should only get approval if the PDGA wants to create a special class of discs that only can be used in a special class of tournaments -- like softball verses baseball.

[Blarg]

Jimg, not to nitpick or anything, but you said:
"Dave Dunnipace thinks that discs such as the Epic should not be disallowed"


I believe he said the disc SHOULD be disallowed.
Perhaps it was a typo, but it confuses the issue either way.

Yup, typo on my part:

"should be disallowed"

or

"should not be allowed".

Sorry 'bout that.

One problem I could envision is (and I think someone else brought this up one way or another) when a disc gets tacoed or dinged and is no longer 'symmetrical'. Will it still be legal if the rule is re-written, or how do you account for that if not?

the "epic" is STILL symetrical. the rim is merely off center. whereas the typical golf disc has infinite axes of symmetry, the epic only has one.

[james_mccaine]

Dan, you could just say "manufactured symmetrical," but as Luke observes above, the Epic is symmetrical about one axis. Very interesting. Good rule language is so difficult to make.

Maybe, "uniform weight distribution from center to edge." Probably flawed also.

Though the approval of the Epic contradicts it, I've always thought that the implied definition of a disc included symmetry of the disc and its rim, and symmetrical distribution of weight. A circle is symmetrical; the inside circumference of an Epic's rim isn't a true circle. Maybe creating a rule that a disc's center of gravity has to be in the center of the disc would fix the mischief?

[mcthumber]

I don't understand. What, exactly, about the Epic is so objectionable? What slippery slope will it lead to?

There are specs in place that define a golf disc. If the Epic fits the specs, how can it be disallowed? Who knows what creative designs lie in the future? What would Bobby Jones think of today's "metal woods"? Could he have imagined them?

I can understand not liking the Epic. I'm not fond of the Blowfly. It's too soft, but I don't want it banned.

--Mike

[mcthumber]

I understand much the same hoopla ensued when the first golf discs (like the Phenix) began to replace what is now the "vintage" 100 molds.

Where would we be now if new designs were squelched back then?

--Mike

If you'll visit the Question for Dave D. thread in the "equipment" category
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=42323&amp;page=0&amp;view=collaps ed&amp;sb=5
from Sept 29, 2003 on Dave talked about some of the concerns he has about the PDGA approval of the Epic.
If you read between the lines, I think you'll find it isn't an economic concern that is behind his objections, but rather a love for our sport and about what a disc is and isn't. I have no problem with the Epic for casual play, but imo it should not be legal in tournament play because it crosses the line into the "when is a disc not a disc?" category.

[mcthumber]

Thanks for the link. I admit I haven't been following that string but I did wade through the relevant section.

As much as I respect Dave's contributions to the game, I can't buy the "it will change the nature of the game" argument. Innovation is the lifeblood of any endeavor and I don't see the Epic as a quantum leap that is going to change the face of the sport.

Separating "casual" discs from "tournament" discs seems like a bad idea to me. Either it's legal or it isn't.

"A disc that's not a disc"?? You lost me on that one.

I'm not looking for a huge debate, I just wanted to voice another opinion.

--Mike

Separating "casual" discs from "tournament" discs seems like a bad idea to me. Either it's legal or it isn't.




Same thing. Aerobees aren't legal PDGA discs, but if someone wants to use one on the course during a recreational round, who cares?

As much as I respect Dave's contributions to the game, I can't buy the "it will change the nature of the game" argument. Innovation is the lifeblood of any endeavor and I don't see the Epic as a quantum leap that is going to change the face of the sport. -- Mike




Dave didn't say the Epic will change the nature of the game, he said that pdga approval of it opens the door to approval of discs that will. As a disc design expert, in his thinking, he has already moved past the Epic to other innovations to which approval of the Epic opens the door. There are plenty of innovations that would change the game if they turn disc golf into a game where a disc is predominantly thrown upside down, like a baseball, or like a bowling ball. Saftey is also a consideration.

Although one could dismiss Dave's concerns as a conflict of interest, I think a careful look will show that his priorities are what is best for our sport. He could easily innovate all kinds of "when is a disc not a disc" products, but his focus is on the game of disc golf.

[mcthumber]

You're right, Jim. For me, if it's not a tournament round, it's practice for a tournament round. Folks out there for truly casual rounds can certainly use any disc/contraption they like.

--Mike

[mcthumber]

He could easily innovate all kinds of "when is a disc not a disc" products, but his focus is on the game of disc golf.



True. But can he do it within the current specifications for a golf disc?

All I'm saying is that the Epic apparently falls within those specs. If Dave's new design does too, then where's the argument?

--Mike

[bapmaster]

robj, just a quick correction. The inside circumference of the Epic's rim is a true circle. It's merely offset from center, hence epicentric.

The inside circumference of the Epic's rim is a true circle. It's merely offset from center, hence epicentric. -- bapmaster



Thanks for the correction. Would you say the major distinguishing characteristic of the Epic then is that its center-of-gravity is not the center of the disc? And, could a regular disc achieve the same characteristic by adding heavier material in one half of a disc's rim to offset the center of gravity?

As with discs over 200 grams, another factor to be concerned about is safety. How accurately can the Epic be hurled?

[neonnoodle]

As with discs over 200 grams, another factor to be concerned about is safety. How accurately can the Epic be hurled?



As with anything, it depends on who and the experience they have throwing it.

By your logic all guns should be outlawed. (Hey! That's not a bad idea...) /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[rhett]

I believe the defining characteristic of the Epic is the fact that the wide side of the rim is so big, and that is what changes it from being a "disc" and turns it more into a "discus". Not the weight distribution.

Dave can easily see the progression to the single thumb hole and the completely filled-in underside. At this point is it a disc or a discus?

Where's Craig when you need some good ole "intent" conversation? :)

[neonnoodle]

or "Spirit of the Intent!"

Perhaps Dave really believes that he is defending the "Spirit of the Intent" in trying to get the Epic removed from the disc golf market. But the burden of obvious conflict of interest is far too great to ignore.

This is something better left to the PDGA, if they rule that the Epic is not a disc based on arguments made by Innova, Discraft, Lightening, or Innova Clones I would imagine that they would open themselves to legal action (I ain't no lawyer, but it makes sense).

Their silence on this issue would be to their advantage. Let the PDGA rule on this by themselves. The Epic in it's current form is no real threat to the major disc manufacturers anyway. Nowhere near the threat CE and Z plastic is! :D

[bapmaster]

Would you say the major distinguishing characteristic of the Epic then is that its center-of-gravity is not the center of the disc? And, could a regular disc achieve the same characteristic by adding heavier material in one half of a disc's rim to offset the center of gravity?




Rob, I'm no physicist, but I believe the offset rim is sort of a double-edged sword. The extra surface area of the rim is what makes the disc so fast (i.e. Speed Demon), which, in my opinion, is the disc's major distinguishing characteristic. He merely pulled the weight to the center. I would guess that the reason it's off-center would have something to do with being able to grasp the disc. If it were an equal width all the way around, it would be exceptionally difficult to throw. Most people that I know have trouble as it is. Loss of accuracy is the trade-off that comes with the unusual design. I, for one, have no problem with the disc (of course, I can throw a thumber 350' to 400' now :D).

[rhett]

Dave Dunipace and Innova have the wherewithall (sp???) more than anyone else to fashion new discus molds and bring them to market, so the "conflict of interest" stuff doesn't really fly.

[james_mccaine]

I suspect you're right Nick. The disapproval of the previously approved Epic is a lawsuit waiting to happen. That being said, now is a good time to use foresight, make some decisions to tighten up the specs or prepare for the possibility that the sport may look vastly different in twenty years.

[bapmaster]

It seems to me that the disc vs. "discus" argument could easily be applied to the triangle rim as opposed to the previous equipment. Take Dave's argument back however many years, and we're still playing with 70 molds and whatnot. How is this situation any different than that? Do we just create limits to make someone's patent valid and someone else's innovation not?

[dannyreeves]

YES!

[rhett]

I thought that patent had officially expired.

[bapmaster]

I don't know anything about that, Rhett, but that doesn't change the question. I think the changes in the game with the advent of the triangle rim were were extreme in comparison to any changes we might see with assymetrical discs.

[james_mccaine]

I think Rhett is right about the patent. I may be naive, but the "that's awfully self-serving" argument/rebuttal seems rather weak.

[rhett]

If you don't know anything about it, then why are you preaching it as the driving force for opposition to the discus?

Dave Dunipace also had a lot of success with the super heavy discs before weight limits because he is a big fella with great levereage and strength. Yet he supported the weight limits because he supports the skill of making discs fly.

[james_mccaine]

Take Dave's argument back however many years, and we're still playing with 70 molds and whatnot.



Bapmaster, I think the argument is that this disc is "a different animal altogether" while previous "innovations" were merely "the same animal, only slightly evolved."

I see three four general positions here. The first see no "problem/issue" with these types of discs and view concerns about it as an overreaction. The second see the issue with it, but certainly don't see it as a problem. The third see it as a possible problem and are either unsure or do not like the direction it leads to. The fourth don't care one way or another.

At a minimum, I would like the PDGA to recognize this as an concern to some and fall into one of the first three categories.

[mcthumber]

Dave can easily see the progression to the single thumb hole and the completely filled-in underside. At this point is it a disc or a discus?




But, Rhett, wouldn't a "filled-in" underside put the disc way over the maximum allowable weight? Unless they start molding discs out of upsidaisium, I can't see this as a probable progression from the Epic.

--Mike

[rhett]

But, Rhett, wouldn't a "filled-in" underside put the disc way over the maximum allowable weight?



Now that's a good point. :)

[neonnoodle]

That being said, now is a good time to use foresight, make some decisions to tighten up the specs or prepare for the possibility that the sport may look vastly different in twenty years.



James, if the sport doesn't look vastly different in twenty years then there are a lot of folks doing a lot of work for nothing!

I have no problem with this topic per se, however any movement to make the Epic illegal for PDGA play needs to be spear headed by members other than the disc manufacturers.

Again, I doubt the Epic will have much of any impact because of it's apparent unpredictability. Now the Epic II, III, and V might...

<FORM METHOD=POST ACTION="http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/dopoll.php"><INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME="pollname" VALUE="1071105494David McCormack">


Should the Epic be considered an illegal discs due to its ununiform shape of the rim?

[boru]

<FORM METHOD=POST ACTION="http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/dopoll.php"><INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME="pollname" VALUE="1071105494David McCormack">


Should the Epic be considered an illegal discs due to its ununiform shape of the rim?




No. The Epic meets current PDGA standards and has already been approved. It does not pose a higher threat to safety than other discs, and it has not changed the nature of the game. There are no grounds for revoking the Epic's PDGA approval.

There are some good arguments on both sides about the implications of disc evolution for our sport. In my unsolicited opinion:

1. It shouldn't be too hard to test just how much unconventional disc designs would change the nature of the game. I suggest establishing a Golf Disc Evolution Task Force to do this. The task force could be a loose coalition of disc designers, top players, and anyone else who could make a positive contribution. Dave Dunipace has some ideas about where the future of discs might lead. Why not put those ideas into plastic and see how they really work? I know a lot of money goes into creating a new disc, but my understanding is that most of the cost is in the mold. I'd think you could create prototypes without a mold - using a lathe, for instance - and keep the cost of the program low. Task force members would then test the prototypes by throwing them, playing rounds with them on the course, and trying to use them in every conceivable manner. The insights gained from such an endeavor would provide direction for any potential changes to PDGA disc specs. Individuals with the resources to create disc prototypes would be free to contribute, so as to eliminate any concerns that disc manufacturers would manipulate the program to suit their interests.

2. The conflict of interest concern is valid, but it seems unfair to bring up Dave Dunipace when discussing it. Some of you may know things I don't, but from what I've seen, Dave is the model of professionalism. Still, while his expert opinion should certainly be considered in this matter, it would be a mistake to let the recommendations of equipment manufacturers dictate PDGA policy. Right now, there isn't much money in disc golf, so we can be fairly safe in assuming that the game's prime movers are motivated by the love of it. Down the road, though, things may be different. As disc golf grows, and starts to involve more money, it will begin to attract people who are motivated by greed and self-interest. You don't have to look too hard to find examples of what happens when policy is made for the benefit of a few, and at the expense of many. Whatever the possible consequences of unchecked disc evolution, giving vested interests undue influence over the rules is a far more dangerous path. (Again, I don't mean to implicate Dave in any of this.)

So with all that in mind, there are at least a couple possibilities:

1. Change PDGA rules to include a limit on asymetry. I'd really like to see something like the task force described above before this was done.

2. Change the certification procedure to require a testing period, where a disc had to be available for use in casual play for a certain amount of time. This might only need to apply to unconventional disc designs.

On another note, what's all this about discuses? First off, they're symetrical. Second, I don't see how a golf-weight discus would help anyone's game. I mean, have you tried throwing a discus? It's freakin' impossible!

[Blarg]

Boru:

Well put. I'm not sure I agree, though, with the safety issue.
The Epic (at present) is more unpredictable than any other disc out there and is therfore more likely to hit someone.
Also, the widest part of the rim represents an object of much
greater mass density than any part of any other disc. This would seem to make it, at least marginally, more dangerous.

In essence, if I had to chose a disc to get clunked in the head with, the Epic would be my last choice. :)

[neonnoodle]

I don't know about it being less predictable than any other disc. Most of Innova's, Discraft's, and certainly Lightening's less stable discs are complete and utter mysteries to figure out. Flip/Not Flip.

Though, I'm sure with practice those discs can be figured out.

The one that I thought could never be figured out was the Phlazer. The Dimple would be a close second.

I think that we all need to prepare ourselves for larger companies to enter the disc market. As I understand it the patent ran out for Innova. I will likely always remain loyal to Innova, but every year a new generation of disc golfers is born, and like the kids of today that never knew a world without DVDs, Cell Phones, and Global Positioning Devices, there will likely come a time when new disc golfers didn't know when Titlist or Galloway didn't make disc golf drivers...

[tafe]

I'll never throw a "Swoosh"!

[circle_2]

IMO, the debate whether the Epic is a 'distance-enhancer' has settled into one camp...the overhand throwers, the thumbers.
My question to the thumbers - What other discs can do what the Epic does for you? Do other discs, stable or unstable, perform the barrel roll and glide out on a consistent or semi consistent basis?
Another poster claims to have an improved "roller disc" design...
Lots of questions can be raised here, eh?

[boru]

The Epic (at present) is more unpredictable than any other disc out there and is therfore more likely to hit someone.
Also, the widest part of the rim represents an object of much
greater mass density than any part of any other disc. This would seem to make it, at least marginally, more dangerous.

In essence, if I had to chose a disc to get clunked in the head with, the Epic would be my last choice. :)



Hmm . . . how 'bout a max-weight E Series Speed Demon? It's faster, heavier, sharper, and the plastic is harder.

To me the safety issue is more about the potential damage a disc can cause than how likely it is to hit someone. We're never going to eliminate the possibility of hitting people with discs. What we can do is make sure the discs we're throwing aren't lethal. I love the Speed Demon, and I'd never support banning it, but I think it represents the outer limits of what we should be throwing in terms of safety.

[bapmaster]

My question to the thumbers - What other discs can do what the Epic does for you?



There is no other disc that can do the same things the Epic can. The reason is this - the Epic is high-speed very understable, and low-speed overstable. The combination of these two things is what produces the barrel roll effect. It's so understable at high speeds that it flips over more than any other disc thrown upside down, but, in that flip, it burns off speed, and so when it gets all the way over, it hyzers out. It's the same concept as the s-shot, except the Epic flips 90 degrees before it hyzers. There are other discs that will come out of the upside-down flip into a hyzer, but they generally are already dropping by that point, and won't glide. The Epic gets over fast enough that it can get air underneath it and go forever.

[circle_2]

Wouldn't a beat-up overstable disc do this?
My guess is that your answer is no...or seldom/most-often-not...
How predictable do you find the Epic as a thumber disc?
Some opinions I've seen here suggest that a mild headwind is an essential element for the barrel-roll...true? And that quite a bit of height is needed to give it room to operate...thus potentiating the possibility of errant throws or unpredictable results?
I find a disc such as the Epic is quite intriguing...in that 'only' a small minority can find an advantage...and gaining 50'-100' of distance when compared to all other discs, is utterly amazing!

[bapmaster]

My answer is no. That's because a beat up overstable disc is simply less stable than when it was new, but the Epic has drastically different flight patterns at different speeds. In predictability, it is fairly predictable, but that pretty much goes out the window with any wind. With a left to right wind (I'm righthanded) it just gets beat into the ground once it hits the hyzer angle. A headwind is definitely the best thing to increase distance, although, as I said, mine is so beat that it will continue to flip in a headwind. And the headwind is not necessary by any means, it will just hold it flat, or cause it to flex, longer. Other than that, I've got a pretty good idea what's going to happen. Not an incredibly accurate shot, but if I'm throwing that disc, accuracy is probably the least of my worries.

The height issue really just depends on release angle. [longwinded sidebar]When mine was fairly new, I was out experimenting with it one night, trying to throw hole 1's tee to hole 8's basket (probably around 375') at Riverside here in Tulsa. Since there's not room for a huge sweeping hyzer there, I simply threw the disc sidearm, upside down, so that it started out nearly parallel to the ground. My theory about the shot was correct, and the disc flipped around the exact same amount as with overhand, but since the starting angle was different, so was the angle where it stopped the roll and hyzered. The disc flipped all the way over into an anhyzer, and then came back. It looked like someone just threw it the way it was intended (with a little s-flex). The thing was, it was practically a line drive the entire flight. Never higher than 25 feet (which is line drive compared to the 40'-60' I throw it in overhand). I'm not really sure any of that answered your question, but that's my story.

[mcthumber]

Bapmaster-- good job in that explanation. You hit it all correctly (from my experience).

Bottom line-- it's predictable depending on wind speed, direction and angle of release. :eek:

Mostly what I can't predict is the exact angle the disc will strike the ground at after hysering out at the end. If it comes out short, it rolls sharply to the left (I'm righthanded). If it comes out over, it rolls sharply to the right. If it comes out just right, it rolls til it brings tears to your eyes (you see, unlike most overhand throws, when the Epic strikes down, it's rolling forward instead of backward

--Mike

[neonnoodle]

Whether you think it should be made illegal or not the Epic does have some jaw dropping flights.

Whether you think it should be made illegal or not the Epic does have some jaw dropping flights.



bravo to all jaw dropping flights -- but I still would like to hear what the thought process was behind the PDGA approval of the Epic. Just because it fit within the letter of the law, doesn't mean it didn't do so merely through lack of a more careful definition.

If a golf ball was designed to have an offset center of gravity, what is the likelihood it would gain PGA approval?

[bapmaster]

robj, a "more careful definition" is no different than a "different definition". As far as I'm concerned, intent is irrelevant. There is no possible way to determine intent on every rule in the book. That's too subjective. If the disc fits in "the letter of the law", as you say, then it's a valid disc.

What should be illegal is the plastic they used to make this thing...I'm telling ya, dont throw it anywhere near a tree, rock, bush, ground, or dense air...you will put some major damage to the rim...Now if they made it in a Z-CE-plastic then ya, I would actually carry it in my bag, until then it will continue to..wait...where is that disc anyway???? I think I threw it into some bushes...and never bothered to get it.

a "more careful definition" is no different than a "different definition". As far as I'm concerned, intent is irrelevant. There is no possible way to determine intent on every rule in the book. That's too subjective. If the disc fits in "the letter of the law", as you say, then it's a valid disc. --bapmaster




I doubt that the PDGA decision process is that mechanical. Certainly they have the power to rewrite a regulation to preempt interpretations which are deemed to not be in the best interest of the sport. I doubt major league baseball defined a legal bat as being made out of wood until the aluminum bat was invented.

There may be no way to determine intent on every rule in the book, but when controversy arises the PDGA works to make a rule clearer by revising the letter of the rules to reflect what they feel is in the best interest of the sport. Evidently it was decided that the offset center-of-gravity of the Epic is not a concern that warrants a re-writing of the definition of a legal disc to mandate that the center-of-gravity be in the center of any PDGA-approved disc. Whether the PDGA will decide to re-write the definition of a legal disc sometime in the future remains to be seen.

[gnduke]

The only other disc I have been able to execute a barrel roll thumber with is a Dragon, but it requires a headwind.

Now that you bring it up, there is an old DX firebird I have that turned into a roller after it hit it's first tree. I might take that to the field to see what it will do.

I too have been able to barrel roll a Dragon, but they dont go near as far as the epic, and yes they do need a headwind. a friebird however is what i always use on my thumbers and i have yet to have it barrel roll...maybe ill throw it into a few trees today.

[Lyle O Ross]

I can acheive a barrel roll with a wildcat by turning it into an Epic. Earlier I posted that I thought the flight characteristics of the Epic were acheived because of the weight distribution on the disc.


However, what the Epic does is move the center of gravity of the disc further out on the forearm lever. Essentially this increases the length of the forearm artificially (an illegal advantage) without changing the length of the forearm. Furthermore, by having that extra lump of weight out there you increase the snap. It is harder to get it moving (momentum) but once it gets going at your normal speed you've achieved an increase in acceleration.



If this is true, by adding a weight to the outside of a standard disc you should achieve the same (or similar) results. I took a 1/4 wide strip of duct tape and 5 small nuts (more specifically, 8/32 thread nuts) and taped them to one side of a 168 gr wildcat just inside the rim. I am still experimenting but the disc flies like the descriptions I've read of the Epic. First, it comes out of my way fast. Second, the disc appears to fly, on average, 20 to 30 feet farther than throws with an unaltered disc (I say appears because I was throwing on a windy day and I need more throws in other conditions to be sure). Third, the disc does a wicked barrel roll when I throw a thumber.

These are very preliminary results, but they are consistent with the model that all the Epic does is add a lump of weight to one side of the disc that increases its acceleration and torque out of the throwers hand.

It is also interesting to note that the disc does not precess or wobble around its center of gravity, rather it still appears to rotate around the center of the disc much like I've heard the Epic does.

I am going to try and obtain more data with my altered disc but I'm looking for the counter experiment. What I want is for someone with an Epic to equalize the weight distribution on their Epic so that the weight is equally distributed around the center of the disc and see how it flies. This is a more difficult experiment since getting equal weight distribution requires balancing the disc.

[circle_2]

Very, very interesting!
Can this be replicated by 'subtracting weight' from one side of a disc...such as drilling out some of the rim-plastic and replacing it with...say, uh......cork?? :D

Balncing an Epic would probably require a trip to your local tire store and a computer spin balance...

[Lyle O Ross]

Very, very interesting!
Can this be replicated by 'subtracting weight' from one side of a disc...such as drilling out some of the rim-plastic and replacing it with...say, uh......cork?? :D

Balncing an Epic would probably require a trip to your local tire store and a computer spin balance...



Not really, just use a lawnmower blade balancer or make a balancer by mounting a pointy stick (like the one you stick in your eye :)) onto a platform.

Keep in mind, I've only done a few experimental throws and need more data before I can say I really believe. I do believe the barrel rolls I got out of the disc but the longer throws are suspect. For example, since I believe my model, I might have unintentionally thrown the weighted disc harder than the unweighted disc resulting in longer throws. Also, my throws weren't longer than my longest throws but I believe that was due to the 25 mile an hour winds we had down here yesterday. More experiments today.

BTW, you wouldn't want to cork your disc, instead, drill holes and fill them with lead making sure not to exceed the max weight allowed. :D

[Lyle O Ross]

Two other things I forgot.

The first is that my designer Epic is fairly unpredictable like the original. Again, this may have been due to the wind. Second, I would love to have an Epic believer do the same experiment to see what results they get.

[circle_2]

I'd be interested to hear how your weighted and unweighted Wilcats would compare in R>L and L>R winds. Sounds like you've got that combination of Hi-speed-understable with Low-speed-very-overstable...
I think I'll get an Epic and refire my retired overhand throw...as I've wanted to work on my sidearm/flick as well. Should be interesting! Will have to do some weighted experiments once I've got some snap. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Doc

[Lyle O Ross]

I took some more throws yesterday. There was less wind but still some. First, I couldn't recreate my barrel roll. I'm guessing it was wind aided. Second, I saw no significant difference in the distance between weighted and non-weighted discs. However, I was throwing very well today, at the edge of my max range (350 ft: my average is much closer to 300 ft on most days).

BTW the discs I am using are a 167 WC with weights and a 174 without. I need to actually weigh the discs to make sure the final weights are close.

You are correct circle_2 about the high speed understable low speed overstable. The disc comes out very fast then takes a big jump to the right (I throw RHBH) and then at the end of its flight becomes overstable. All my throws have been either upwind or downwind so I don't have any info on crosswind throws.