A playing buddy of mine showed me a technique for tuning discs to change the flight characteristics of discs without physically altering the disc through filing or grinding. I have taken discs like a flash and tuned it to fly like a Flick or predator and the tuned it again to fly like a roadrunner. This has allowed me to use the same mold to fill all sorts of different shot requirements.

My concern is that using these discs for tournament play might not be legal since you are not supposed to physically alter the flight characteristics. Any input is appreciated.

What do you mean "tuned"? Do you mean bend the edge up or down like the Epic? Do you mean boil it? Do you mean flatten it? These have been done by a lot of people and I believe it is legal. A disc cannot be altered by grinding/sanding down a rim or edge beyond cosmetic or small scratchs or taking the flashing off a brand new disc edge. You will notice that a disc as it gets beat up by hitting trees or scratched up by hitting hard ground etc., gets more unstable over time that makes it fly differently than it was new. This is the beauty of some of the discs that beat in well that it fits your game or courses.

802.01 C. Players may not make post-production modification of discs which alter their original flight characteristics. This rule does not forbid inevitable wear and tear from usage during play or the moderate sanding of discs to smooth molding imperfections or scrape marks. Discs excessively sanded or painted with a material of detectable thickness are illegal.

802.01c:

Players may not make post-production modification of discs which alter their original flight characteristics.


is crystal clear in its prohibition of "tuning". I'm sure some rules "interpreter" will chime in otherwise, but the rule is extremely simply worded & unambiguous (to a critical reader) in its condemnation.

but is tuning considered a modification.

mod-i-fy vt
make partial or minor changes to something, typically so as to improve it

Bending a disc to make it fly differently is unambiguously "making a partial or minor change" to it.

Definition courtesy New Oxford American Dictionary.

Its just a matter of bending the edges of the disc so that the nose is higher or lower than normal. I know that the discs beat in to understable as the wear in, but that is allowed by the rule book. My question is physically altering the characteristics on purpose and unaturally. The discs are then physically different than a new disc in that if you put them on the table the the noses will not be the same height as the new disc even though they weren't filled or sanded.

Doesn't Quest make tuneable discs? Brenner, you reading this?

"wear and tear from usage during play" = specifically allowed
"modification of discs which alter their original flight characteristics" (see definition of modify above) = specifically prohibited

It is very simple, black & white.

Doesn't Quest make tuneable discs? Brenner, you reading this?


All discs are potentially tunable. But using one so modified in PDGA tournament play is prohibited. Tune those Epics & Questies away for your Sunday beer league, but do not let a rules-knowledgeable competitor (at least one with the sack to call rules violations) catch you doing so in PDGA play.

If "tuning" changes the flight characteristics it's illegal.

I throw alot of Quest.
I throw alof of Discraft.
I throw alot of Innova.
I throw alot of Latitude64
I throw alot in general.

ALL discs can be tuned. TRUST ME. Some just show more signs than others.

now, is it legal? I dont think so and I dont do it, but no one has proved to me thats it's not illegal.

whats "inevitable wear"... maybe me tuning is just "wearing" the disc in?!?

I've seen PLENTY of people pull discs out of their bags before throwing and bend them this way and that, not to do anything specific, just out of habit or to make them think they are flexing the disc back to whats considered "normal".

hhhhmmmmmm.... ?!?!?!?!?!?

my deal with tuning is this. are you really going to get something so great out of this tuned disc that, if you are unaware needs to be tuned pretty well or the flight changes adversely, that cant be covered by one of the hundreds of models of bees available right now that needs no alterations and is going to be more consistent because they are not forever fighting the tune? doubtful.

just my $.02

The tuning goes into plastic deformation so once you get it tuned it stays that way indefinitely. And I think that tuning is a big grey area as far as rules go. You could get the same results from accidentally leaving your disc in your car on a hot day; three hours in the hot sun and viola - a tuned disc that wasn't intended.

The reason I started tuning discs is that I find certain molds to be very comfortable in the hand and instead of changing from say a TeeBird to a Firebird, I can just tune a TeeBird to behave like a Firebird while still feeling like a TeeBird in the hand. It tends to yield better more consistent results since my grip is not always changing from disc to disc.

"Players may not make post-production modification of discs which alter their original flight characteristics."

Not grey at all. By bending the edges up or down you ARE making a post-production modification to the disc that, by your admission, alters the flight of the disc.

Ahhh, but what are "their original flight characteristics"? How could you prove that the player is not tuning the disc to restore its original flight characteristics? Is the tunability of the disc one of its original flight characteristics such that tuning the disc does not alter an original flight characteristic but merely realizes or actualizes an original flight characteristic?

The rules committee has long been aware of the issue of tuning discs. They have never deemed it of sufficient importance to address in the rules.

But their approach to X-outs and factory seconds might reveal their philosiophical approach towards the issue:


Conclusion:

Since these discs were produced from the molds for PDGA-approved models, they have already been indirectly approved by the PDGA Technical Standards Committee, and as such they are legal for PDGA play, as long as they meet the overall restrictions (weight, rim sharpness, flexibility, etc) as outlined by the PDGA Technical Standards document.

The committee understands that many of these discs may have slight molding imperfections but it is our opinion that they still perform essentially the same as other production discs and that they meet the standards under which their original models were tested.

Players always have the right (per 802.01 D) to question the legality of a disc used in competition. In such cases the Tournament Director will make the final call.

The PDGA Rules Committee

Carlton Howard, Chair
John Chapman
Conrad Damon
Harold Duvall
Joe Garcia
Jim Garnett
Rick Voakes

So if I taco a disc, I can not bend it back into shape.

or if I own an older disc that is beginning to be less overstable than it was originally, is it OK to tune it back to it's original flight characteristics.

The conclusion that I've drawn is that it has to be legal because you can get the same results from neglecting an improperly stored disc for too long. Are you going to ban someone from using a tuned disc and allow someone else to use a disc that was left in the car for too long? They are the same disc. What about the argument that "I thought the disc came out of the mold incorrectly so I tuned it to fly like it should or I think it should" Look at all the flat top destroyers and all the really domey destroyers. They fly differently, are physically different but were molded that way. If they fly noticeably different shouldn't they be classified as different discs and have a new name and go through PDGA approval all over again?

Just my $.02

I couldn't "prove" anything but that doesn't mean that a rule wasn't broken.

If a player doesn't believe that the rule stated above applies to tuning, then there is absolutely no way for me to "prove" they broke a rule. If I called them on it they could easily say, as Bruce pointed, out that they were returning the disc to original shape, which all of us have done after hitting a tree really hard and picking up our "tacoed" disc.

Only the player would know that they were actually changing the profile to make the disc perform the way they want it to rather than the way the disc was designed to do.

Even though the rules clearly states that this is illegal, they do it anyway because they believe it doesn't apply to them and that they will never be caught.

You're only addressing my first argument. My second argument is that the tunability of the disc is one of its original flight characteristics. "Flight characteristics" is not a defined term. The tunability of the disc was definately one of its original characteristics. It is a characteristic relating to how the disc flies. Therefore, tunability is arguably an original flight characteristic. Therefore, tuning the disc does not change its flight characteristics, it actualizes its flight characteristics.

The conclusion that I've drawn is that it has to be legal because you can get the same results from neglecting an improperly stored disc for too long. Are you going to ban someone from using a tuned disc and allow someone else to use a disc that was left in the car for too long? They are the same disc. What about the argument that "I thought the disc came out of the mold incorrectly so I tuned it to fly like it should or I think it should" Look at all the flat top destroyers and all the really domey destroyers. They fly differently, are physically different but were molded that way. If they fly noticeably different shouldn't they be classified as different discs and have a new name and go through PDGA approval all over again?

Just my $.02



Is your justification that "tuning" is legal based on that it isn't a post-production modification or that it doesn't alter a disc's original flight characteristic? While either position would be insanely incorrect, they are the only two <u>possible</u> justifications for saying that "tuning" is legal, based on the 100% unambiguous wording of the rule.

So which is it? Or neither, just that you prefer to ignore what the rule explicitly states &amp; make up your own self-serving "interpretation" based on complete fantasy?

You're only addressing my first argument. My second argument is that the tunability of the disc is one of its original flight characteristics. "Flight characteristics" is not a defined term. The tunability of the disc was definately one of its original characteristics. It is a characteristic relating to how the disc flies. Therefore, tunability is arguably an original flight characteristic. Therefore, tuning the disc does not change its flight characteristics, it actualizes its flight characteristics.



The same ridiculous argument could be extended to meltability to punch-[censored]-in-the-middle-ability, and is obviously specious.

"Flight characteristics" obviously refers to how a disc flies after it leaves the factory, so if you perform an intentional modification that changes the way a disc flies from that when it was brand-new, that is clearly a violation.

punch-[censored]-in-the-middle-ability


Now that is completely ridiculous. I can't hyphenate the made-up word "punch a hole in the middle ability" without being censored for using a "banned" word. Big brother truly sucks!

VR,
Consider the following: I store my back-up discs in stacks in the garage. Over time, some of the domier discs lose their dome and flatten from the weight of other discs on top of it and temperature fluctuations over time. Is this disc now illegal?

He said "a hole" :o:D

No my conclusion is based on the fact the same result can be had by natural means as well. Like I saidif I leave a disc on my dash board in the Texas sun it will deform on its own. Tuning doesn't remove any weight from the disc.

VR,
Consider the following: I store my back-up discs in stacks in the garage. Over time, some of the domier discs lose their dome and flatten from the weight of other discs on top of it and temperature fluctuations over time. Is this disc now illegal?


No. You did not make the modification (the rule only explicitly prohibits players from making the post-production mods), time &amp; gravity did.

What if I knew that by doing said actions would result in a flatter disc that would be faster and more overstable?

No my conclusion is based on the fact the same result can be had by natural means as well. Like I saidif I leave a disc on my dash board in the Texas sun it will deform on its own. Tuning doesn't remove any weight from the disc.



Intent.

What if I knew that by doing said actions would result in a flatter disc that would be faster and more overstable?


See above

No my conclusion is based on the fact the same result can be had by natural means as well. Like I saidif I leave a disc on my dash board in the Texas sun it will deform on its own. Tuning doesn't remove any weight from the disc.



Please point to the clause in the rule that allows post-production modifications to a disc that could also (albeit much more slowly) be accomplished by natural means as well. I seem to be missing it, probably because it is in the "Attempts by geoloseth to Weakly Justify my Rulebreaking" addendum, which I have yet to thoroughly read.

Seems pretty cuTT and dry to me: illegal.

Oh defender of the pure golf disc what about if someone throws a disc into a nearby tree time and time again during "practice" is that OK, or practice a skip shot on concrete, OK or not? Now say hole 10 at patap some folks intentionally roll down the paved road, OK? Where do you draw the line?

Heres the long and short of it in my opinion.

1) It is illegal

2) You will never be caught

Do as you will.

VR,
Consider the following: I store my back-up discs in stacks in the garage. Over time, some of the domier discs lose their dome and flatten from the weight of other discs on top of it and temperature fluctuations over time. Is this disc now illegal?


No. You did not make the modification (the rule only explicitly prohibits players from making the post-production mods), time &amp; gravity did.



So I can't throw my disc against a tree or wall (which I've done) to make it fly differently either? Where is the common sense in all of this? Bending discs is not going to give anyone a real advantage.

Bending discs is not going to give anyone a real advantage.



Well, then they shouldn't be upset that it's illegal then. :confused: :p

VR,
Consider the following: I store my back-up discs in stacks in the garage. Over time, some of the domier discs lose their dome and flatten from the weight of other discs on top of it and temperature fluctuations over time. Is this disc now illegal?


No. You did not make the modification (the rule only explicitly prohibits players from making the post-production mods), time &amp; gravity did.



So I can't throw my disc against a tree or wall (which I've done) to make it fly differently either? Where is the common sense in all of this? Bending discs is not going to give anyone a real advantage.



I have to add that it is not done during a tourny between throws, but I have done it to "break in" a disc before.

Oh defender of the pure golf disc what about if someone throws a disc into a nearby tree time and time again during "practice" is that OK, or practice a skip shot on concrete, OK or not? Now say hole 10 at patap some folks intentionally roll down the paved road, OK? Where do you draw the line?


Shark, you're an honorable dude, so if you said that your disc was modified by normal wear &amp; tear, I'd believe you.

I'd also expect that you (and all players) would be honorable enough not to try to skirt a rule by manufacturing "abnormal" wear &amp; tear by rolling a disc on pavement or smashing it into a tree to intentionally modify its flight characteristics. I'm sure many folks will let me down, as this is no longer a very honorable world in which we live. Please don't tell me you're one of my letdowns, or I may have to modify the first clause of my post.

Storing discs on the dash of your car, basement of your house, trunk of your car, may change the disc some, but you did not intentionally alter the disc.

Now if you stored your discs in the basement with a weight on top of them, that is intentionally altering a disc.

If you hit 20 trees and your disc flies differently, it was not intentionally altered. If you bend it back, you are now in violation of the rule.

The rule seems straight forward to me, if people can not understand this rule, I suspect its for their own benefit.

The rule seems straight forward to me, if people can not understand this rule, I suspect its for their own benefit.


W3rd.

VR,
Consider the following: I store my back-up discs in stacks in the garage. Over time, some of the domier discs lose their dome and flatten from the weight of other discs on top of it and temperature fluctuations over time. Is this disc now illegal?


No. You did not make the modification (the rule only explicitly prohibits players from making the post-production mods), time &amp; gravity did.



So I can't throw my disc against a tree or wall (which I've done) to make it fly differently either? Where is the common sense in all of this? Bending discs is not going to give anyone a real advantage.



I have to add that it is not done during a tourny between throws, but I have done it to "break in" a disc before.



Anybody ever counter-argue their own post?

I can see the shortcomings of my comments. For instance, as I read above, it is all about intent. If I use that disc in a PDGA tournament, technically, it is illegal.

OK, well I don't do those things just because I am not interested in tuning my discs, but it is not because I am a good guy I like to say I have firm principles and they are negotiable. But back to your "holier then thou" mindset in your world if a disc smacks a tree and gets tacoed during a round then wouldn't bending it back be wrong too? If it is OK then when is it too much bending, or if you do not bend it back is that wrong? :confused:

I take GREAT offense to the "holier than thou" statement, my friend. I only seek a level playing field. I really couldn't care less if somebody wants to go home &amp; take a chainsaw to his discs &amp; modify away. But the rub is that there is an honorable subset of people who actually attempt to obey the rules as they are written. These folks are put at a disadvantage by those who choose to ignore whatever rules conflict with their usual practices.

If post-production modifications are really no big deal, then throw out the freaking rule. Then the playing field would be level for all players (at least regarding that small facet of the rules of the game). If, on the other hand, it is a valid concern, then leave it. Whichever way, don't accuse somebody of being "holier than thou" for insisting that the **** rule (or any other **** rule) be obeyed.

I take GREAT offense to the "holier than thou" statement, my friend. I only seek a level playing field. I really couldn't care less if somebody wants to go home &amp; take a chainsaw to his discs &amp; modify away. But the rub is that there is an honorable subset of people who actually attempt to obey the rules as they are written. These folks are put at a disadvantage by those who choose to ignore whatever rules conflict with their usual practices.

If post-production modifications are really no big deal, then throw out the freaking rule. Then the playing field would be level for all players (at least regarding that small facet of the rules of the game). If, on the other hand, it is a valid concern, then leave it. Whichever way, don't accuse somebody of being "holier than thou" for insisting that the **** rule (or any other **** rule) be obeyed.



Exactly!!!

in your world if a disc smacks a tree and gets tacoed during a round then wouldn't bending it back be wrong too? If it is OK then when is it too much bending, or if you do not bend it back is that wrong? :confused:



That would be returning the disc to its "original" flight characteristics and would be perfectly within the rules.

if a disc smacks a tree and gets tacoed during a round then wouldn't bending it back be wrong too? If it is OK then when is it too much bending, or if you do not bend it back is that wrong? :confused:


READ THE RULE!!!!

Players may not make post-production modification of discs which alter their original flight characteristics.


If your modification seeks to return a disc to its original flight characteristics (such as un-tacoing or sanding down a burr), it must be allowed.

Oops, must've been posting simultaneously w/ Ken. What he said. :D

Holy Cow, I need to go back to the NASTY thread.

Beyond the obviousness that the Epic, a disc that was designed to be tuned, got approved, Bruce Brakel makes the best point here. What was the original configuration? Even then, I suspect the point is over made. I don't play DX plastic but I'm pretty sure you can't take my Champ Valk and make it into a Firebird by bending the rim. I'm not even sure you could make it into a Viking (the same mold with a minor modification). I hit trees frequently enough to know that disc flight characteristics aren't that easily changed.

Most importantly, you find me someone who can gain, on average, one stroke per round by bending their rim and then this becomes a topic of interest, till then I really don't see a problem.

Holy Cow, I need to go back to the NASTY thread.




2nd!

BTW Vegan, you're arguing black and white. Black and white issues often fail, the world and people just aren't that rigid. I'm not saying you're wrong, you're right, I'm just not sure it's important. The rules committee wanted things to be fair and I've found often enough that things that appeared black and white to me where perceived as minor at best to them. They often ask the question, "does this really give the player a huge advantage?" If the answer is no, they tend to ignore the issue. My advice is drop Carlton a line and you'll get an answer.

punch-[censored]-in-the-middle-ability


Now that is completely ridiculous. I can't hyphenate the made-up word "punch a hole in the middle ability" without being censored for using a "banned" word. Big brother truly sucks!



punch-a[/b]-hole-in-the-middle-ability

huh? :D

Most importantly, you find me someone who can gain, on average, one stroke per round by bending their rim and then this becomes a topic of interest, till then I really don't see a problem.



I doubt you could find someone who gains, on average, one stroke per round by failing to adhere to 804.05A(2), so that rule should probably be ignored, as well. Right?

BTW Vegan, you're arguing black and white. Black and white issues often fail, the world and people just aren't that rigid. I'm not saying you're wrong, you're right, I'm just not sure it's important. The rules committee wanted things to be fair and I've found often enough that things that appeared black and white to me where perceived as minor at best to them. They often ask the question, "does this really give the player a huge advantage?" If the answer is no, they tend to ignore the issue. My advice is drop Carlton a line and you'll get an answer.


If the actual body that writes a rule doesn't have the balls to enforce it, they should at least have the balls to repeal it.

Most importantly, you find me someone who can gain, on average, one stroke per round by bending their rim and then this becomes a topic of interest, till then I really don't see a problem.



I doubt you could find someone who gains, on average, one stroke per round by failing to adhere to 804.05A(2), so that rule should probably be ignored, as well. Right?



Again, you're viewing the issue in black and white. Again, you're technically correct.

Yes, I can think of ways to modify discs that will give me specific advantages on specific holes thus allowing me to lower my overall score. For example, I could move weight around on the flight plate to make a disc roll in certain fashions to to turn in certain ways to to be much better spike hyzer discs. The rule is meant to keep things relatively equal not perfect. The minor change that occurs when you bend the rim is probably less than wear and tear and less than removing flashing etc. I'M guessing it is the degree of modification that will be considered by the rules guys.

On the other hand, I'd write Carlton and see what he says. He might come back that it's illegal and my argument would be moot.

I don't care what Carlton says. It is OBVIOUSLY (to anyone fluent in very simple English) illegal they way the rule is written. If the RC's intent is something different, the rule MUST be rewritten.

I agree it would be next to impossible to find someone that gets a 1 stroke advantage per round. But merely for the sake of arguing, take a player who only carries one flippy disc, said player throws said flippy disc into the water. Now for the rest of the round, he tunes his stable disc to make it understable.....

Now, I think this guy gets an advantage.

Would I ever call someone on this rule, most likely not. I have never called anyone on any rule, given a lot of warnings though. But a question was asked and I am merely trying to give me opinion ($0.02)

I like everyone here, and we are all equal in my eyes. ;-)

Talk amongst yourselves, heres a topic:
The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman.... hahaha

BTW Vegan, you're arguing black and white. Black and white issues often fail, the world and people just aren't that rigid. I'm not saying you're wrong, you're right, I'm just not sure it's important. The rules committee wanted things to be fair and I've found often enough that things that appeared black and white to me where perceived as minor at best to them. They often ask the question, "does this really give the player a huge advantage?" If the answer is no, they tend to ignore the issue. My advice is drop Carlton a line and you'll get an answer.


If the actual body that writes a rule doesn't have the balls to enforce it, they should at least have the balls to repeal it.



Why do such things always come down to balls? Heck, I think Marshals should be given stun guns and allowed to stun anyone who foot faults! That'd show em! The rule is a guide line that is meant to keep players from doing something major to their disc to gain an advantage. Flexing the disc is relatively minor in relation. Morally, you're right, in terms of real advantage, by my interpretation it's nitpicky.

The problem with acting strictly on moral grounds is that morals are foible too, they are often culturally biased. Again, the question becomes, does flexing of the wing give you an advantage?

For a three month period a couple of years ago Nick Night argued that the courses should not be changed in any way during a round. You couldn't move a stick anywhere because you changed the course the next guy was playing. He was looking for a perfect playing environment. The world is anything but perfect. You have to play as fairly as possible but you shouldn't try and be perfect. My company buys companies that try and be perfect all the time. It's darned expensive and doesn't pay in any event I've ever seen.

I don't care what Carlton says. It is OBVIOUSLY (to anyone fluent in very simple English) illegal they way the rule is written. If the RC's intent is something different, the rule MUST be rewritten.



Drop this issue, I have a better one for you, open field foot faults! Every one who tries to actually hit them agrees that it significantly affects your game to do so. Yet few really do. The RC admits the rule is ignored and argues it makes the sport more exciting to do so (sort of like Mikey taking those extra two steps during a drive to the basket, looks good, illegal as all get out). That rule does matter and I'd much rather see someone with your zeal work on that issue than this one.

802.01c:

Players may not make post-production modification of discs which alter their original flight characteristics.


is crystal clear in its prohibition of "tuning". I'm sure some rules "interpreter" will chime in otherwise, but the rule is extremely simply worded &amp; unambiguous (to a critical reader) in its condemnation.



what if tunability was a part of hte manufacturer's design? bending a disc is within the rules. long live the Double D!

[Again, the question becomes, does flexing of the wing give you an advantage?


No only do I not have enough empirical data to answer that question, I don't believe that is the question at all. The important question is, does the fact that some players believe it is their right to tune a disc &amp; do so without penalty while others correctly follow the rules &amp; fight the urge to do so give the former subset an advantage? I posit that there is no doubt that it does even if the actual tuning provides no physical advantage whatsoever.

BTW - beyond the excellent point that Pat makes, for my game, it seems risky to be messing around with such things during an important round. What if I want to tune my disc to point A and my thick fingers take it to point B and I hoof my shot? What a dumb way to add a stroke! Better to pull out a disc I know flies like an A disc and throw that.

Seems like manufacturers should also be held accountable for changes that occur in flight characteristics of discs produced from the same mold long after approval...

'If the actual body that writes a rule doesn't have the balls to enforce it, they should at least have the balls to repeal it. "

would we even have a rulebook in that case! :)

Or perhaps have only women on the RC that don't work for or are sponsored by a manufacturer...

what if tunability was a part of hte manufacturer's design? bending a disc is within the rules. long live the Double D!


The rule doesn't specify that you cannot alter a disc's "manufacturer's design" but rather its "original flight characteristics". It would be a serious exercise in verbal gymnastics to argue that tunability is an "original flight characteristic".

Or perhaps have only women on the RC that don't work for or are sponsored by a manufacturer...


Lots of women I know have much bigger metaphorical balls than most of the men out there.

would we even have a rulebook in that case! :)


That would be infinitely preferable to having a rulebook where people who rigorously follow the letter of the law are penalized by having those who do not given the old "Wink, wink. It's cool, man. No major advantaged gained."

VR,
Consider the following: I store my back-up discs in stacks in the garage. Over time, some of the domier discs lose their dome and flatten from the weight of other discs on top of it and temperature fluctuations over time. Is this disc now illegal?


No. You did not make the modification (the rule only explicitly prohibits players from making the post-production mods), time &amp; gravity did.



Ah, so the key word is "players" -- if that's the case, we should outsource all of our tuning needs to non-players, thus rendering the modifications legal by the strictest rule-zealot interpretation of the PDGA rule as written.

Of course, that is a silly interpretation -- a legal loophole, if you will. Instead of completely literal interpretation of the rule (which allows silly loopholes), we should try to discern the INTENT of the rule. Because I think most of us recognize that rules are not always as carefully worded as they would ideally be, and it is the spirit of the rule, not the literal interpretation that is most helpful to the advancement of the sport.

I believe that the spirit of the rule is to prevent people from making modifications to their discs that would result in objects that would no longer meet the PDGA approval specifications. For instance, if we could treat a disc with a chemical that made it as tough as steel, that would be illegal because it wouldn't pass the flexibility test. We can't cut notches in the side of the disc because that wouldn't pass the roundness requirements. We can't cut holes in the top of the disc because that wouldn't pass the intact flight plate requirement. We can't add detectable thickness to the disc because that might not pass the dimension specifications and also may pose a safety hazard for various reasons, or put an object over the weight limit. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

In my understanding, the spirit of the rule is to prevent players from monkeying with their disc to create discs that would never pass specs. I don't think the rule is intended to prevent minor deformations of the basic plastic as provided.

Cconsider what is intended by "original flight characteristics" -- if you buy an Aerobie Epic for instance, it comes with a printed sheet of instructions on how to tune the disc to alter its stability. If you visit the Aerobie Web site (http://www.aerobie.com/Products/Epic.htm), they provide even more details on how to tune your Epic.

I think you can argue -- based on the fact that tuning instructions are provided by the manufacturer and recommended for the disc, that tuning an Aerobie epic is considered part of the "original flight characteristics" -- the disc is designed from the factory with the intent of user customization.

You could make the valid argument that the Epic is the only disc (that I know of) that comes with tuning instructions from the factory, so perhaps it is the only disc that players are allowed to tune?

The closest parallel I can find from Innova is in their product description for the Roc (http://www.innovadiscs.com/discs/roc.html) (similar descriptions exist for all of their discs, but I pick the Roc because of its ubiquity). The Innova description for the disc includes the phrases: "It ages slowly, becoming an excellent slow turning disc as it wears." and "The Roc ages gradually and predictably." and "DX discs wear in with usage and over time will eventually take on new and varied flight characteristics."

One of the major selling points of the disc is that it "will eventually take on new flight characteristics." The disc is intended to change flight characteristics over time, and that's one of the major selling points of DX Rocs is that they break-in faster than other plastics. Other types of plastic for the Roc are marketed based on how slowly they change characteristics -- marketed on their durability.

If the purpose of discs were to remain true to their "original flight characteristics," then every disc would be required to be produced out of the most resilient plastic possible, and anytime new runs that were flat or domey or in some other way substantively different from the original as submitted to the PDGA would be required to resubmit for new testing.

Part of the intended design of discs is that they will wear and that their original flight characteristics will change. That is part of the manufacturers marketing and design and is part of players' expectations. We depend that discs will change over time -- our bags rely on the fact that we can have several of the same mold and they will all fly differently.

So what are the "original flight characteristics" of a disc? Let's look at the Innova Valkyrie. The manufacturer describes it as a "Turnover Distance Driver with great glide." -- I have some 2nd Run CE Valks that are nowhere close to that description. They are more overstable than firebirds -- Avery couldn't turn them over into a headwind." Does that mean that they don't meet the original flight characteristics as intended by the manufacturer? In almost any other industry, something that was so radically deviant from expectations would be ruled as a defect, a horrible aberration. In disc golf, those rare Valks are coveted because of their unusual flight characteristics.

There are countless examples from every manufacturer of different runs and plastics flying in very different ways -- often in ways very different from the specified intent of the manufacturer. Which I think brings us back to the spirit of the rule. The PDGA doesn't require new plastics or run aberrations to be recertified by the PDGA. Once a mold is approved, the mold is legal for play. All of the modifications -- intentional and unintentional -- by the manufacturer are approved for play, even when they cause radical variations in "original flight characteristics." This suggests that the spirit of the PDGA rules regarding legal/illegal plastic modifications are intended to prevent out-of-spec or possibly dangerous discs from being used in play.

If tuning a disc = minor, intentional changes to the deformation of the disc that simulate the natural process of a disc hitting other objects -- changes that do not affect the roundness, weight or intactness of the disc -- then I think it is impossible to believe that the spirit of the PDGA rule would prohibit players from tuning their disc. Especially since the evidence from manufacturers suggests that changes in original flight characteristics are intended/expected (the Aerobie Epic being the most extreme example).

Or, if all of this logic fails, and people can't agree on the spirit of the law, then we can always go back to the letter of the law, and just teach a non-player how to tune discs for us. ;)

Oh, and for the record as a disclaimer, I don't tune my discs -- I don't have time to play enough to know how they fly fresh, much less to intentionally deform them to see what changes. So you won't find any tuned discs in my bag. This whole diatribe is because it is a Friday afternoon at work, and I'm just counting down the hours before the weekend starts and I can get down to Hawk Hollow tomorrow morning. :-)

That would be returning the disc to its "original" flight characteristics and would be perfectly within the rules.



I purchased two Star TLs, and one is a little more stable than the other. Can I tune one star TL to match the flight characteristics of the other TL?

Last year I bought this awesome 1st run Star TeeRex, can I hand tune the one I just bought to match the flight characteristics of the 1st run TeeRex?


I submitted the question of "Can you hand tune a disc golf disc" to the rules committee earlier this week. I am awaiting an answer, and I will post their response.

I agree with Vegan that as the rule is written, no bending or tweaking can be done. On the other hand, it's virtually unenforceable for another reason. How many of you press your thumb into your putter enough to depress the top as part of your grip? I've seen players taco a Blowfly on really windy days near the basket before tossing it in to reduce any flight dynamics. Both of those actions change the flight characteritics by bending the disc material. Considering that discs are approved top side up, would anyone argue that throwing it upside down or a roller are intended flight characteristics?

Seems like the intent of the rule would be to prevent any significant addition or subtraction to the materials comprising the disc. Otherwise, the phrase "flight characteristics" will need to be defined in a future rulebook and that's unlikely to happen even if it could be done.

Seems like manufacturers should also be held accountable for changes that occur in flight characteristics of discs produced from the same mold long after approval...


:Dgood one Chuck! very nice...

look, we dont even weigh disc to see if they are legal or not. talk about a black and white tech standard/rule being ignored!

tunable discs: Lyle makes and excellant point also. do you really WANT to tune a disc substantially during a real round? i have been throwing the DD for close to a year now. i'll tell ya, you need to have your wits about ya when you decide to go tune-n-throw down by a stroke with two to play. i found that if i had been using the disc during the round and was positive i knew where i had it tuned , i could feel fairly comfortable with what i was about to do. but there is NO way i would pull it from my bag and make its first throw of the day a competitive throw. not a chance. and i LOVE the DDs!

tunable discs are extraordinarily educational. using them WILL help your game. you will understand more about wing shapes and the flight patterns they create. tunable discs are wonderful teaching aids too! its like having a mobile flight lab that you can do demonstrations with. talk about helping players understand the physics behind the disc! tunable are awesome for that.

one technique for making tunables involves using at least two different plastic compositions. in short, a special plastic is used at the junction of the flight plane and the rim structure. this special interior blend fuses the two parts together, and it cools into a crystalline structure. as the player bends the discs, that crystalline structure breaks up and the plastic takes on an amorphous structure. this allows the rim to be tuned relative to the flight plane. thats why you need to really break in the DD when you get it. it takes quite a few flexes to break down the fusing plastic into its malleable structure.

given that the mfg certainly intended this charecteristic, i'm going with legal eagle Bruce on this one - bending is the actualization of the intended flight charecteristic. and therefore is legal.

combined with the educational benefit and utilitarian nature of these discs, and tunable discs might just be one of the most relevant and exciting technologies out there at the moment.

we shut down experimentation in rim widths when we restricted rim widths. lets not destroy even more innovation by making tnable discs illegal.

Seems like manufacturers should also be held accountable for changes that occur in flight characteristics of discs produced from the same mold long after approval...



Case in point: old mold TeeRex vs new mold TeeRex. The first one had a tendency to be squirrely from disc to disc. Was that the flight characteristic (not knowing what the next one you throw will do?) then the new mold comes out and is very predictable but obviously physically different from the first. It's still approved as the old mold but has different flight characteristics. The rules are black and white, the definitions of terms that the rules are based upon are not so cut and dry.

Your "spirit of the rule", mine, and Joe Blow's may be exceedingly different, so it exceedingly important that the actual words that comprise the rule in plain English describe what is allowed &amp; what is prohibited. Like I said above, I couldn't give a rat's behind about somebody tuning their disc, but that doesn't mean that one person who believes it helps him should be able to do it without penalty while another who believes the same thing abstains from tuning because the rule obviously specifically prohibits it.

would we even have a rulebook in that case! :)


That would be infinitely preferable to having a rulebook where people who rigorously follow the letter of the law are penalized by having those who do not given the old "Wink, wink. It's cool, man. No major advantaged gained."



ya know what? in this point, i think i agree with you rather strongly

we shut down experimentation in rim widths when we restricted rim widths. lets not destroy even more innovation by making tnable discs illegal.


Tunable discs are not illegal. Tuning them (and proceeding to use them in PDGA play) is. The rule is unambiguous. If the RC's intention is different, they need to rewrite it.

'Nuff said. I'm going to go fold my 148g 4x Aviar into eighths &amp; play a non-PDGA round of disc golf.

Holy Cow, I need to go back to the NASTY thread.




2nd!



EVERYBODY DOES, ITS THE BEST THREAD EVER! SUPPLY YOUR "NASTY" NAME AND WIN A KILLER PRIZE c/o TEAM YINZER!!!!

I can see it now for future targets once the survey results are in - tunable nubs...

we shut down experimentation in rim widths when we restricted rim widths. lets not destroy even more innovation by making tnable discs illegal.


Tunable discs are not illegal. Tuning them is. The rule is unambiguous. If the RC's intention is different, they need to rewrite it.



I think at this point in the discussion, we can all agree that the rules committee needs to address the issue and more clearly refine the wording of the rule to eliminate the ambiguity. I am a person who believes in playing by the rules as written. But I also believe that the rules should be written in such a way that two people who read the same rule should be able to quickly agree on what the rule means. In this case, I think this thread proves that the rule is not well written, so regardless of the intention of the rule, it needs to be revised to make the intention clear.

tunable discs are extraordinarily educational. using them WILL help your game. you will understand more about wing shapes and the flight patterns they create. tunable discs are wonderful teaching aids too! its like having a mobile flight lab that you can do demonstrations with. talk about helping players understand the physics behind the disc! tunable are awesome for that.



I think this is a great point. Back to my comments on the "spirit of the rule" (which I agree is an ambiguous phrase, but I still play a lot of Ultimate, and we live and die by spirit of the game, so that family of concepts is soaked deep in my thinking) -- I think that the spirit of the rule is regarded to disallow modifications that would make a disc dangerous or violate the approval specifications. Any other modifications should be allowed -- especially in the interest of teaching players about the game and about flight.

I know in college, my roommate and I did try tuning some discs. We flattopped and heated and sanded and weighted discs in all kinds of PDGA-illegal ways and threw them in a field just to see what would happen. Attending "Aerodynamics 201" was our codeword for skipping class to throw plastic. It was awesome to experiment with flight and see what happens to discs. And discovering how discs work and what affects flight is one of the beautiful things about this sport. It is simply beautiful to watch discs in flight. Encouraging experimentation is one of the things that leads players (And manufacturers) to improve in their understanding of the sport, of aerodynamics, and is part of what advances both players' abilities and manufacturers innovations.

I say rewrite the rule in a way that explicitly allows tuning (by which I mean flexing the rim of the disc to change its profile and its flight characteristics) to encourage all of us to get out and experiment with our plastic without feeling guilty about it or taking a $15 disc and making it illegal for play.

Oh, and for the record as a disclaimer, I don't tune my discs -- I don't have time to play enough to know how they fly fresh, much less to intentionally deform them to see what changes. So you won't find any tuned discs in my bag. This whole diatribe is because it is a Friday afternoon at work, and I'm just counting down the hours before the weekend starts and I can get down to Hawk Hollow tomorrow morning. :-)



Nice write up Tim!

For the record, I have tuned one Valkyrie and the results were astounding. The disc changed from a HSS of 0 to an HSS of -4. In fact the disc is now so understable that it could only be used as a roller disc. I am waiting for a ruling before I use this disc in a tournament; although I will have to tune it "back" a bit.

I tuned the Valkyrie because they are my favorite disc, and the driver that I use the most. However, my "lost Valkyrie" to "nicely beat Valkyrie" ratio is not good enough. I was down to my last two nicely beat Valkyries, and put one in the creek of Hawk Hollow ;).

So how do you legally get a new "beat Valkyrie" just like your favorite beat Valkyrie?

1. Play ~50 rounds of disc golf with a new Valkyrie (then they start to fly the way I like them).

2. Practice skip shots with a new Valkyrie on a rough surface (however, make sure you do this to improve your skip shot, and not intentionally alter the disc flight characteristics), and then sand the bottom to remove the burrs (but not to intentionally alter the disc flight characteristics).

3. Hand tune your Valkyrie.

I cannot believe that #2 is legal, but that #3 is not legal.

I find it amazing that some guys will buy 10 copies of one disc, say a valkyrie, and go out to a field and they all perform the same so the guy can practice his throws. Given the different experience for each disc you'd think there'd be marked differences in the flight of each disc and what that player would get out of throwing them...

Remember, when you hit something hard, the disc flexes, Sometimes you literally change the disc (as with DX plastic) and yet I still hear about guys using the same discs in the same ways. I find it hard to believe that flexing the disc is really making a significant change in it's flight. Alternatively, why in the heck do we have 100 different discs from Innova, 70 from Discraft, 25 from Gateway, 20 from Millennium, and on and on. It seems you really only need a driver that you can tune to fly any way you want it to... Now where was that Epic?

On the other hand, it has frequently been pointed out that old school players have one or two drivers, a midrange and a putter and they regularly beat up those with bags fool of discs. Perhaps the truth of the matter is how you throw your discs. :D

On the other hand, it has frequently been pointed out that old school players have one or two drivers, a midrange and a putter and they regularly beat up those with bags fool of discs. Perhaps the truth of the matter is how you throw your discs. :D



That is the problem with most guys that go out and buy all sorts of different discs, they never learn to throw any of them properly. I've found that after playing that all I need is an overstable driver, stable driver, understable driver, mid, and putter and I can throw just about every shot that would come up in a round. I have become very familiar with each of my discs since I carry only a few molds.

But what if by tuning you could carry just one mold of driver and have various copies act in any way that you want them to (overstable, understable, etc) then you would have the same back with just 3 molds instead of 6 or 7.

On another note. Every disc that I've bought from Innova has a fair amount of flashing on the bottom. If they all tend to come out that way shouldn't that be factored into the flight characteristics? If that is true then wouldn't cutting or sanding off the flashing be considered intentionally altering the original flight characteristics and therefore illegal for use. If that were the case then tuning a disc that has lost its flashing to fly like it originally did WITH the flashing would be making a post-production modification to return it to its natural characteristics. Then you have to take into account mold changes over time, like the old mold beast and the new mold beast. Should it be considered illegal to intentionally tune a new mold beast to behave like an old mold beast? Although the molding has physically changed, according to the PDGA it's the same disc with the same flight characteristics. And then you'd have to consider random fluctuations in the case of every disc. Shouldn't you be allowed to take the same mold disc and tune disc x (with no flashing) and make it fly like disc y (which has so much flashing that it behaves entirely different than any other production run disc in that mold).

I don't care what Carlton says. It is OBVIOUSLY (to anyone fluent in very simple English) illegal they way the rule is written. If the RC's intent is something different, the rule MUST be rewritten.



And now I am not fluent in English? That is offensive to anyone that disagrees with your interpretation of the rule.

It seems clear to me that the rule intends to prohibit changes to the disc that add or remove mass. It speaks directly to excessive sanding and painting.

With your interpretation, quite a few grips are illegal and almost anyone that putts with a supersoft putter is breaking the rule. I am sure that if you asked any player whose grip deformed the flight plate of the disc they would agree that the pressure of the grip affected the flight of the disc. Does the temporary nature of the deformation make it allowable?

Ray, sorry I flew off the handle, you certainly have a right to your views and upon a little reflection mine might not be too different, but regardless I do apologize.

The objection regarding people deforming the flight plate with their grip during putting has come several times during this discussion thus far. In relation to this rule, deforming the flight plate with your grip and bending the rim specifically to change flight characteristics (e.g. not during play). are 2 completely different things. The rule clearly allows an exception for normal wear and tear on the disc that happens during a round. I do not see how anyone could argue that the act of gripping the disc (and any deformation that follows) is not "inevitable wear and tear from usage during play".

If bending the rim from getting a grip on the disc is not illegal than who's to say then that I can't tune my disc by going around the rim and trying to get a good grip. Essentially what I'm doing to time the disc is gripping the hell out of it. So I guess that means that tuning is okay then if it occurs durring the course of me finding the right grip on the disc. Or would that still be considered intent of changing the flght caracteristics since I know that gripping the disc that hard would ultimately result in deformation that changes the flight properties.

this is a dead horse.
the intent of the rule is too ambiguous.

I submitted this question to the Rules Committee on Sunday, July 6th. Any guesses on when I will get a reply?


If that is true then wouldn't cutting or sanding off the flashing be considered intentionally altering the original flight characteristics and therefore illegal for use.


This one is actually taken care of in the rules: "This rule does not forbid ... the moderate sanding of discs to smooth molding imperfections ..."

Of course, I think that this solves my problem all by itself. This Valkyrie is not quite like the last Valkyrie I bought, let me just sand of the molding imperfection to fix it ;).

However, I also expect that they will rule hand tuning to be legal. I would think that everyone who plays has had to straighten out a tacoed disc so it flies like it used to. Clearly this is not considered against the rules. If that is ok, then what stops someone from taking a brand new disc and making the first shot down the narrowest fairway they can find. Now all they have to do is straighten it out so it flies like the "orginal disc".

---------------------
Sign me ... Waiting patiently for the Rules Committee to see if I can use my nicely tuned Valkyrie roller.

If you mean that you submitted the quoted question to the rules committee, and nothing more, they've got to be scratching their heads saying, "If WHAT is true?"

Maybe you'll get an e-mail back asking for a clarification.

I havent been through the thread so forgive me if this has been brought up, but if we cant tune disc wouldnt FLX plastic be illegal?? Seriously, it was meant for people to flex it out so if I saw someone with a bag of FLX discs and saw them flexing it wouldnt it therefore be illegal? And because it would be such a problem wouldnt the PDGA have to ban FLX plastic??

If you mean that you submitted the quoted question to the rules committee, and nothing more, they've got to be scratching their heads saying, "If WHAT is true?"




I sent them a nice link to geoloseth's video ... it does not get much clearer then this:
http://s307.photobucket.com/albums/nn287/geoloseth/?action=view&amp;current=DiscTuning.flv

However, I am suprised that I did not even get a confirmation email that they received my question.

Since I can't get the past 15 minutes of life I just expended to read this, I must post that this rule is one of the stupidest in disc golf.

For starters, nothing you can do to a disc can make it "better" or "unfair". When this rule was written I don't think that there were many molds on the market and manufacturer's were worried about someone stumbling onto a better flying disc by seriously messing with it. There are so many molds, companies, and innovations now that some chump in his garage is not going accidentally turn a disc into the world record distance holder by tooling it.

Why was this rule written anyway? It seems like it only benefits the manufacturers who want you to buy a new disc to fill a stability gap when you lose a disc rather than working a disc that you already have to fill the gap.

Considering economics play a role in most things I can see why some people think its strange that there are some on the rules committee that have vested interest in disc manufacturing. Maybe this is a little paranoid, but the conflict of interest is OBVIOUS.

We should abolish this rule. This thread is the evidence that this rule is silly and completely unnecessary. If this rule was actually enforced it would cause a huge deal. Can you imagine telling people that their putters were illegal because they had left thumb impressions in the flight plate? It is ridiculous.

We also have a rule that requires at least 500 of a disc model to be produced and available to the public and newly approved discs to be in retail stores 30 days in advance of the Worlds. Those rules would also be unnecessary following your logic. Innova wouldn't have to provide the Destroyer or Wraith to any players but their sponsored players for example because anyone could tune their Roadrunner to fly like a Destroyer, right?

Almost, you can tune a roadrunner to have the same HSS as a destroyer, but the LSS, speed of the disc, wing shape (the Destoyer has a small notch), and mass distribution would not be the same between the two because they are two completely different discs.

I had posted the following question to the rules committee (along with the link to geoloseth's video on disc tuning): "Is it legal to modify a disc by bending the rim by hand. Modifications are not detectable by the naked eye."

I received the following email in reply today:

Dear Dan,

Thanks for writing!!!

I'd say so, but any disc's legality can be challenged by any competitor and the TD makes the final call.

Yours Sincerely;

Carlton Howard
PDGA Rules Committee Chairman

I'd say so, but any disc's legality can be challenged by any competitor and the TD makes the final call.



Interesting. So are they saying that if I don't like the way your disc is flying, I can bring it up to the TD and challenge it. But since there is no tool markings on it and the disc is otherwise in normal condition then that TD would have to allow it baring any legitimate flaws (holes, cracks, weight, etc). I wonder what some TD's on here would say if someone brought up the issue during a tournament now that we have an unofficial response from the RC.

802.01 C. Players may not make post-production modification of discs which alter their original flight characteristics.



So in this case what if someone else who is not a player boils their disc but then gives that disc to a player without the player's knowledge. Whoops I think I just found a loop hole.

Whoops I think I just found a loop hole.



In an activity like disc golf, it's pretty easy to find ways and justifications to circumvent fair play. Of course, it's pretty easy to play fairly, too.

But is it really going to make that much of a difference. It's the player that makes the disc not the disc that makes the player.

I wouldn't consider tuning a disc to be an alteration. I always read this rule to mean that you can't do things like add a weighted ring to the inside of the rim, coating the disc to reduce friction or shave the rim to alter the profile. Both of these type of alteration give a player an unfair advantage. If the rule is saying that when a disc loses its shape after hitting a tree, I can't bend it back into its original shape, I don't get it. It's no advantage to me because anyone can bend their disc. Customized alterations to a disc can't be easily or consistantly duplicated by another player and therefore should be illegal. Otherwise, the sport becomes partly about engineering and the player's skill with alterations.

One does not become a Jedi until they have built their own light saber. Maybe one's skill at disc tuning should be a prerequisite for becoming a pro. :cool:

I'd say so, but any disc's legality can be challenged by any competitor and the TD makes the final call.



Interesting. So are they saying that if I don't like the way your disc is flying, I can bring it up to the TD and challenge it. But since there is no tool markings on it and the disc is otherwise in normal condition then that TD would have to allow it baring any legitimate flaws (holes, cracks, weight, etc). I wonder what some TD's on here would say if someone brought up the issue during a tournament now that we have an unofficial response from the RC.



I am going to show the disc that I tuned to some of the local TDs and see what they say, I am pretty sure that all of them will allow the disc. BTW, I thought Carlton's reply was 100% on target!

I think that minor bending and tuning must be legal because everyone does that to fix a "tacoed" disc. However, there is a point were you could take the tuning too far, and they are leaving it up to the local TDs to make that call.

The PDGA needs some way to stop people from doing weird things to a disc. For example, I imagine if you put a disc in a vise, you could get a nice crimp in the disc, and this is probably going a bit far. Of course, that probably does not make sense to do to a driver, but it might make an interesting putter?

I had posted the following question to the rules committee (along with the link to geoloseth's video on disc tuning): "Is it legal to modify a disc by bending the rim by hand. Modifications are not detectable by the naked eye."

I received the following email in reply today:

Dear Dan,

Thanks for writing!!!

I'd say so, but any disc's legality can be challenged by any competitor and the TD makes the final call.

Yours Sincerely;

Carlton Howard
PDGA Rules Committee Chairman


LAME! No surprise, though (see enforcement balls post above).

Also inherently unfair in that a player who does tune is now in limbo as to whether his practice is allowed or not depending on what tournament he is playing &amp; the opinion of the TD. Some tournaments he will be allowed &amp; others not, and he will not know until he gets there.

Why not just throw out the rulebook entirely &amp; let each TD make his own set of rules that he prefers, as that seems to a favorite "ruling" of the lily-livered RC on pretty much every question posed to it. :(

Also inherently unfair in that a player who does tune is now in limbo as to whether his practice is allowed or not depending on what tournament he is playing &amp; the opinion of the TD. Some tournaments he will be allowed &amp; others not, and he will not know until he gets there.



I have played quite a few PDGA tournaments over the past few years, and I have never heard about anyone questioning another players disc. I am also pretty sure that all TDs will look at the disc, and with no visable indication that any thing has been modified, they will declare it to be legal.

However, I think you need to leave it up to a TD judgement call, or someone is going to get Steve McGranahan (http://www.stevemcgranahan.com/index2.php) to bend an Aviar into quarters, and then putt with it like throwing a baseball.

Are tuned discs legal for tournament play?



Tuned with a tool, no, except to remove sharp edges.

Tunning a disc by hand without the use of tools should be allowed, in my opinion.

yes, Ray, that "ruling" makes the situation worse not better. clear guidance to the TD is needed, not instructions to wait and see what the TD says. the fact that the "TD makes the final call" leaves things wide, wide open.

sounds like passing the buck.....and the responsibility

How about discs that are dyed? Dying adds weight to discs and as I have noticed definitely changes flight characteristics (increases HSS slightly and decreases LSF). I dye most of my discs because I like discs that fly straight and have little or no fade at the end of flight, other discs I leave alone because I want them to have hard fade at the end of flight. I've never thought of it as cheating, but my guess is that this is a clear rules violation because I'm changing the flight characteristics - Ray, do you carry any dyed discs?

I should say that I have NO doubt that dyed discs have different flight characteristics, they act very differently and add between 0-3grams of weight depending on the area and how much dye the disc "takes".

How about discs that are dyed?



802.01.F - "All discs used in play, except mini marker discs, must be uniquely marked in ink or pigment-based marking which has no detectable thickness."

That dye is just a unique way of marking your discs, and is legal as long as it has no thickness. So dye is good, but don't have someone spray paint a custom stamp.

Your discs also have to meet the Technical Standards (http://pdga.com/documents/tech_standards/PDGATechStandards.pdf). I think that the requirement of discs can "not exceed 8.3 g per cm of outside disc diameter" is perhaps the only one at risk.

How about discs that are dyed? Dying adds weight to discs and as I have noticed definitely changes flight characteristics (increases HSS slightly and decreases LSF). I dye most of my discs because I like discs that fly straight and have little or no fade at the end of flight, other discs I leave alone because I want them to have hard fade at the end of flight. I've never thought of it as cheating, but my guess is that this is a clear rules violation because I'm changing the flight characteristics - Ray, do you carry any dyed discs?


I don't and, now knowing that dyeing is a post-production modification that alters the original flight characteristics of a disc, I will make double-sure not to. Unless &amp; until the RC rewrites 802.01c to explicitly allow dyeing.

Andrew, thanx for pointing out yet another of the myriad weaknesses in our rulebook (even in this one rule).

Plastic is hygroscopic, and in fact that effect is one argument made by manufacturers when a disc is measured over the weight limit. Some discs apparently can pick up several grams of moisture after leaving the factory. Dying seems like it just speeds up that process that could happen naturally when the disc lands in OB water and is retrieved at the end of the round.

i dye ALL my discs. I dont "fly-dye" the entire disc, its usually a logo of some sort, sometimes half a disc, sometimes smaller. I dye discs I throw. The day after dyeing, it flies the same as the day before dyeing. I have not noticed any change in flight. I dont know what yinz are seeing here that I am not.

Your discs also have to meet the Technical Standards. I think that the requirement of discs can "not exceed 8.3 g per cm of outside disc diameter" is perhaps the only one at risk.



this is NOT true. in the current setup the ONLY discs that need to meet the Tech Standards are the three that are submitted for testing. players should have no fears at all that they will face at-event testing. the Board has made it clear that it is not yet ready to support that type of rules enforcement. the Board has been just as clear that the Tech Standards apply to just the discs submitted for testing and not to individual discs used in play. in other words, as long as the submitted discs pass, our current practice indicates that we do not really care what is used in play.

personally, i would like to see this approach changed to create responsibility for playing with discs that meet the standards. penalties should apply to players who play with non-confomring discs AND to the manufacturers who pump them out. if re-elected i will do my best to make that change happen.

Your discs also have to meet the Technical Standards. I think that the requirement of discs can "not exceed 8.3 g per cm of outside disc diameter" is perhaps the only one at risk.


this is NOT true ... the Board has made it clear that it is not yet ready to support that type of rules enforcement.




802.01.A - "Discs used in play must meet all of the conditions set forth in the Official PDGA Technical Standards Document. See section 805 B for disc technical standards."

So it is accurate that discs used in play must meet the PDGA technical standards. However, I also agree that no tournament in the United States currently verifies that discs in play meet the standard. However, the Japan Open (http://www.japanopen.info/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50&amp;It emid=132) is a bit more serious about things.

The disc tech standards/rules need to be divided into two categories. One that the manufacturers must meet (e.g. rim configuration) and one that the player is responsible for (e.g. no cracked/perforated discs). Once the rules are clearly carved up that way, then rules enforcement of discs in play should be a little bit clearer.

There are really three enitities involved: Tech Standards, Rules Committee and Competition Committee all overseen by the Board. Dividing up the rulebook in a way so each group is more clearly responsible for certain items has been a process underway.

mike, you are dead on. mfgs responsible for the molds and plastics. players responsible for cracks, weights, modifications, etc. sounds do-able on paper.

chuck is right - there is an effort to make the rulebook only deal with actual rules of play and leave out the extraneous stuff. that would move to the players guide and other docs. this is an outstanding idea! and kudos to those who conceived it and got it going.

That thinking was the rationale for the proposed three categories of targets used for responses in the survey.

say what?

Tech Standards deals with specs for the targets and CompCom determines what types and models of targets are appropriate for what level(s) of sanctioned play.

Plastic is hygroscopic, and in fact that effect is one argument made by manufacturers when a disc is measured over the weight limit. Some discs apparently can pick up several grams of moisture after leaving the factory. Dying seems like it just speeds up that process that could happen naturally when the disc lands in OB water and is retrieved at the end of the round.


Where does the rule (in the PDGA rulebook, not the immense &amp; ever-morphing tome known as the Chuck Kennedy rulebook) say that post production mods that could conceivably happen naturally, but were performed intentionally, are allowed?

Just pointing out the unenforceability of the rule as written in terms of natural versus intentional mods and likely why Carlton indicated TDs should make the call on mods they deem unfair. Not agreeing this is how it should be but how it is for the moment.

so why have unenforceable rules?

if the plastic picks up water, then set your max weight lower in the mfg process. stop trying to get the max-max weight out of every disc. or, if you choose to continue that path, accept the fact that a certain percentage of your production will NOT be legal for sanctioned play.

Just another item to put on the checklist for revisions in the next rulebook update. Hope people are making a list so the RC can take a look at things in 2009 that have come up since the last update.

I have &amp; love the new D-Zone. If I hit a tree it bends &amp; I will attempt to get it back to straight/flat before I throw it again. I will also pick/bite/do whatever I can to remove bark from the rim. In a round be it casual, beer league, or tourney. I follow rules &amp; will call others on violations I'm fully aware they are breaking. I don't see my "post production modifications" as something that gives me an advantage. I see it as not wanting to buy a new D-Zone everytime I hit a tree off the tee...

Returning (or the attempt to return) a disc to its factory specs isn't a problem and is allowed by the rule.

But is it really going to make that much of a difference. It's the player that makes the disc not the disc that makes the player.

I have thrown and test flown thousands and thousands of discs.
From my personal experience I wouldn't recommend tuning discs to become more under stable and then trying to tune them back. while this does work, it doesnt help with consistency and the last time I checked playing disc golf was all about CONSISTENCY!!!!!!
I just don't think a player would be able to really know how much the discs changed each time and be able to throw the disc accurately and compete at the highest level of competition by doing this.
So,,,,, as a "competitor", a manufacturer or TD, I say let anyone who wants to do this do it, I cant see anyone gaining any kind of advantage in any way shape or form.
If a guy doing this beats you by 2 strokes, he would have probably beat you by 6 if he didnt do it.

Now as far as flexing NEW a disc to loosen up the polymers or break it in a bit by hitting trees or throwing tomahawks on purpose, I think it would be hard to prove and unenforceable, so why bother.
Ive heard players tumbling rocs in dryers back in the day.
Seems like a post production modification to me, but nothing I or anyone else could prove,,,, so why bother.

Man it seems like people are really concerned about all the wrong things.

As long as a disc meets all the specs,,,, I say let it RIP!!!, whether its been folded in half a few times or not on the list.

Now if you modify the disc and it gets out of the specs allowed by the TSC,,,, thats a whole other subject that we can save for next winter, when we are really bored!

so why have unenforceable rules?

if the plastic picks up water, then set your max weight lower in the mfg process. stop trying to get the max-max weight out of every disc. or, if you choose to continue that path, accept the fact that a certain percentage of your production will NOT be legal for sanctioned play.



Do you have any idea the demand for max weight PUTTERS?
I sold Innova and Discraft for 14 years from 1984-1998 before making discs and at times couldnt "GIVE AWAY" a 171 gram Aviar to a competitive player.
Earlier this spring at an all am tourney here in ST Louis Guys picked up discs we were giving away for free that were under &gt;173grams and tossed them back down like they had leprosy on them. It was 174 and 175 or nothing!

I completely agree about making rules that are unenforceable.
I would say most of the rules we have now are unenforceable or not being enforced and when they are called by players, It just causes tension in the group and most of the time the players making the call winds up playing worse, not the guy that was called.
The few times Ive seen marshals step in to make a call has , lets just say,,, produced negative results within the group from poor interpretations of the rules.

I wish it weren't true, but I really cant see a positive solution in the near future for enforcing any rules whats so ever!

Earlier this spring at an all am tourney here in ST Louis Guys picked up discs we were giving away for free that were under &gt;173grams and tossed them back down like they had leprosy on them




you can send those putters my way...I will gladly take them off your hands :D