With all the talk about drug testing, I got to thinking, why doesn't the PDGA test players disc weights after tournaments?

Now there's a topic worth debating.

Word son.

Actuallyl, I've been pondering this for awhile. It wasn't until I saw discs for sale, with stickers stating the ACTUAL weights of the discs.....175 factory; 176.34 Actual. Seems we have a problem here. Either the factory is lying to be able to move product, or their scales need calibrated.

I see two solutions. The manufacturers get their poop together or the PDGA allows discs to weigh a couple grams more than current regulations allow. I'm for the latter. Oh wait, there is also the current solution...DO NOTHING!

...or the PDGA allows discs to weigh a couple grams more than current regulations allow.


There's a plus/minus to the spec that usually results in a couple grams of allowable variance to the max weight. I'm pretty sure a 176.3g disc is within legal limits for a "max weight 175g" disc. I think 180g discs can go to about 183g and be legal.

(3) not be less than 21 cm in outside disc diameter, nor exceed 40 cm in outside disc diameter;
(4) not exceed 8.3 g per cm in outside disc diameter;


It seems to be a multiplication problem. And there doesn't seem to be any +/-.

Calling Jim Garnett!

A bunch of guys I play with regularly were discussing the accuracy of disc weights about a month ago. Curious, I went and borrowed the electronic balances from the science department at the school where I teach. Our balances are good condition and accurate to 1/100th of a gram. Since I throw mostly Discraft I can only speak to their discs, but I tested over 30 new AND used Z-plastic discs (various molds and runs) and every single disc was less than half a gram (+/- 0.5g) from the mass originally marked on it.

That seems pretty good to me, anybody else actually try checking them? Similar or different results?

nanook

I weighed all of my midnight buzzes on a tripple beam scale (not mine) they were all marked as 177 and they all weighed between 180-183g///

Rhett, the +/- you're thinking of is in the basket specs, not the disc specs. There's a range for legal height.

McCormack wrote on this subject a while ago. The problem is that most players want their discs to be as close to Max Weight as possible, so the Mfrs try to make them max weight, but inevitably some go a little bit over. Then they have a choice of either saying f*** it, and mis-marking it, or going through the time/expense of recycling them.

Raising the current limits won't solve the problem, it'll just start over just above the new max weight.

So who do we hold accountable?

Seems if we hold players accountable, the mfrs will have to follow suit.

Right now, I hold the PDGA accountable. Lets have some integrity, and have it start from the top.

IF anything is done, the players will need forwarning so they can weight their discs, and learn new plastic in some cases. It'd suck to win the USDGC and find out my 175 wraith was actually 177....whooops! there goes 10G's!

What i have heard is the penalty would require a complaint, a weighing of the suspected disc, and then a ruling that the disc was over-weight and then the remedy would be that the disc could not be used from that point forward in the event. (hopefully the TD has a VERY accurate, calibrated, expensive scale)

i think adding a tolerance to the spec would be adequate (+/- 1%) and then the PDGA requesting that manufacturers use accurate weighing and marking procedures for their discs in order to pre-empt any controversy. ymmv

I guess I'm more for a nascar style...you know the rules...if we catch you, you're dq'd.

I don't think there should be any kind of tournament weigh-ins. First off, when it comes to winning, weight shouldn't matter -- no one's ever going to attribute Kenny's 11 titles to a 179g Teebird. Secondly, its the manufacturers fault -- the players shouldn't have to be held accountable for something they can't control. Everyone's now going to be required to buy a scale before they compete?

If weigh-ins were to become the norm however, it should be track and field style where your equipment is weighed before you compete to make sure it meets weight requirements. The same as wrestling -- you don't let a guy compete and then weigh him after the match to determine his division. Taking away someones winnings after the fact is just ridiculously far fetched.

Maybe all manufactures should follow Ching and mark their discs up to a tenth of a gram.

It is my understanding that there is not individual weighing at the production line in most cases, machine is set up to run, the first few discs are weighed to see what the batch is going to weigh and then either set to run or plastic is treaked to adjust the weight for the entire run. If this is really the case and the machine is set to run putter at 175g but only the first few discs are weighed then of course there is going to be variance from disc to disc. Injection molding is just like that. the problem is that if you weiged every disc individualy you would increase production time and therefore have to increase the wholesale price to break even and that will cuase the retail price to go up ...

I agree the burden falls on the manufacturer but realize that if this issue is pressed the cost will go up substantially not only for time to produce but all overweight discs will have to be ground and re-mixed. :confused:

it wasn't a problem until somebody started this thread :eek: :D

Secondly, its the manufacturers fault -- the players shouldn't have to be held accountable for something they can't control.



That's ridiculous. The player's can control it. The discs say PDGA approved, even when they are illegal. It is between the PDGA and MFR's. However, the end user is the ONLY one breaking the rules. The point is, level playing field. There is a reason pros want max weight, and if it's over 175g's there is a realized benefit for the thrower.

Level the playing field PDGA!

If no discs are weighed, than everyone has an equal chance of having overweight discs. It may not be within PDGA standards, but there's your level playing field right there.

Just because I refuse to weigh my discs, doesn't make them legal. BTW, I refuse to weigh my discs.

What should be done, to avoid unjust punishement pertaining to weight issues, is the change the rule to state that the player knowningly throws a disc which exceeds the maximum weight allowed for that particular disc will be penalized.

Obviously it is asking a lot of TD's or even individual players to own triple beam balances.

But if a disc is proven to be illegal, all the player should have to do is take it out of play. After all, they never knew prior that it was illegal, they should only be punished if they continue to throw a proven illegal disc.

But again, there first has to be a complaint about a disc in particular in order for it to be investigated.

However, I would almost laugh at a person if they ever started to complain that I might have discs that are too heavy. Please, the argument is weak at best, but to my knowledge, all my discs are within specs according to the manufacturer.

I've heard Dave Dunipace say that part of his reign on terror in the Open division was due to him being a big guy that could hurl a wind-resistant 230g gram disc closest to the pin. He's an advocate of max-weights so that player's have to demonstrate skill in controlling the flight of their discs.

Weight does matter.

How does 176.3 grams equal 175 even with the gram +/- give from the PDGA?

I own a pro shop, and a digital. Very rarely does a disc weigh what its listed weight is. They are usaully within a gram of listed weights, but there is plenty that are heavy. Case in point: I weighed at least 5 of these discs:

Star TLs- Ive weighed up to 178+, and they are almost all wrong. All listed at 175g.
Star Aviars- Up to 178g.
KC Roc - 182g.
Star Wraith and Pro Wraith- 178g.
Z-Buzzz- Up to 181g.
ESP Surge- 4 said 174g, ALL weighed in at 178g.

Gateway was by far the most consistent to the given weight. Which also explains why McCormack would call it into question.
Discraft was also very consistent, across the board.

Innova was decently consistent given the number of products they have in our shop , Vs. other manufactors.

Every Star SL I scaled was dead on, or at least not overweight.

How much more accurate is a digital , say compared to a triple beam scale?

Or is it just calibration?

A disc weigh in would need to happen prior to an event and all players would have to participate to be fair. There is little recourse once the event is over. Perhaps a player could receive the 2 penalty strokes for carrying an illegal disc.(802.01E) A player can only be DQ'd for repeatedly throwing an illegal disc during the round (under 804.053 which states "a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play)". If discs were weighed after the round, it would be extremely difficult to prove if the player had ever thrown the disc, how many times the illegal disc was thrown or if the player even knew the disc was illegal.

Rhett, the +/- you're thinking of is in the basket specs, not the disc specs. There's a range for legal height.


There has to be a +/- on a measurement. The measurement device will have one. If you don't specify one in the spec, then I will weigh my discs with a scale that is 100% accurate, +/- 1 pound. I guarrantee every disc in my bag will pass every time.

How much more accurate is a digital , say compared to a triple beam scale?

Or is it just calibration?



i'm no expert on scales, but a digital scale isn't necessarily any more accurate -- it just reads hundredths of a gram more precisely if it is well calibrated. the best thing to do would be to have a 175g calibration weight that is known by a VERY accurate scale to be precisely 175g and then test the scale in question with it.

In one design sailboat racing (were all the boats are supposed to be the same). If it is found, that before the event, during the event, or after the event, that your boat didn't meet the specification, then you will be DQ'd. If you know going into an event that you could be DQ'd for using illegal equipment, as a player you wouldn't use the equipment.

Personally I have returned 14 discs to the stores I have purchased them from because they were overweight. I don't know if the stores returned them to the Manufacturers or just resold them. The store at La Mirada actually has a postal scale at the cash register, so you can check the actual weight.

The real question is, can a player gain an advantage from throwing overweight discs? If the answer is yes, then the question of what to do is obvious.

Richard

A few years ago, I traded for a CE Aero that was 183g judging by what was written on the bottom. i used it in a local and a player said he thought Aeros were illegal at that weight. I looked up the Aero here (http://www.pdga.com/discs.php?select_id=1) and saw max. weight was 180.1 and became concerned. Then i scrolled down the list to CE Aero and saw that the CE Aero can be up to 182.6g because it is larger in diameter (22.0 as opposed to the 21.7 DX Aero). i am sure it is the same mold -- just different cooling properties due to different plastic.

I contacted the PDGA because i want to only throw legal palstic and i wanted to know if the CE Aero qualified as legal. I was informed that the disc if 182.6g probably had 183 written as the measurement and that the only penalty could occur if a TD or official weighed the disc and it was found too heavy. then the disc would no longer be legal for play (and i would be told to cease using it) but until that happened it was legal to use it.

i sanded the bottom molding nipple flush (it was pretty large) and figured that was good for about half a gram :D

if anyone wants the disc i would be open to trading it /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :eek:

How much more accurate is a digital , say compared to a triple beam scale?

Or is it just calibration?



Any scale is only as good as the time taken to calibrate. Go talk to the PWD (Pinewood Derby) experts for more on balances.

I run a PWD each year with two IDENTICAL digital scales. Each year, I take one car (designated as 5 oz.) and make sure both scales say the same thing. I turn the car several times to make sure that a measurement doesn't change because of the way the car is turned. Simple enough. Right. Wrong. One year...my car no less....punches 5.1 oz on one machine and 5.0 oz on the other....even after I calibrated. There was some serious eye-brow raising after my first few runs put down some serious numbers.

Get two balances. Take two readings. Spin around two times while looking cross-eyed at the numbers and you MIGHT get a true reading :confused:

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know of an actual instance where a player was penalized or DQed for using a disc that did not meet regulations (other than a non-golf disc)? Personally, I have never witnessed or even heard of a single occurance...

nanook

How does 176.3 grams equal 175 even with the gram +/- give from the PDGA?

I own a pro shop, and a digital. Very rarely does a disc weigh what its listed weight is. They are usaully within a gram of listed weights, but there is plenty that are heavy. Case in point: I weighed at least 5 of these discs:

Star TLs- Ive weighed up to 178+, and they are almost all wrong. All listed at 175g.
Star Aviars- Up to 178g.
KC Roc - 182g.
Star Wraith and Pro Wraith- 178g.
Z-Buzzz- Up to 181g.
ESP Surge- 4 said 174g, ALL weighed in at 178g.

Gateway was by far the most consistent to the given weight. Which also explains why McCormack would call it into question.
Discraft was also very consistent, across the board.

Innova was decently consistent given the number of products they have in our shop , Vs. other manufactors.

Every Star SL I scaled was dead on, or at least not overweight.



Dave also weighs them as soon as they come out of the mold.

I have seen discs called that were too low a production run and disc models too stiff to meet spec (Dimple). Most of the time, it's a damaged disc that gets called. Timmy Gill got penalized 6 or 8 shots (the rule then) at the 1995 Am Worlds by his closest opponent for carrying either a damaged or non-marked disc (can't remember). Observers feel the opponent knew Timmy had a disc violation and waited a few holes to rack up the penalty.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know of an actual instance where a player was penalized or DQed for using a disc that did not meet regulations (other than a non-golf disc)? Personally, I have never witnessed or even heard of a single occurance...

nanook



As far as weight goes, this is such a difficult rule to enforce on the course. Basically if you and I were playing, I would have to state that I thought one or more of your discs was overweight. Then we would have to bring it to the TD/course official and then they would have to weigh it.

In the two years I have been playing tournaments, no matter how badly I been beaten, or how much more stable someone threw their disc into a head wind, never have I doubted the weights of the discs they were throwing. I also have never seen this rule called into question.

I did have a buddy who brought one of his Rocs to his lab, and curiously weighed it and it weighed in a 186 grams. He stated "no wonder that thing was my most stable Roc". He kept it in his closet from then on and stopped throwing it.

I would imagine that if someone depended throwing 167 gram discs, they would be upset when half their 167 discs weighed 165 and the other half weighed 169. Rather while this difference does not make the disc "illegal" it does change how that disc was intended to fly.

I still have a couple of 180 gram Aviars.

There has to be a +/- on a measurement. The measurement device will have one. If you don't specify one in the spec, then I will weigh my discs with a scale that is 100% accurate, +/- 1 pound. I guarrantee every disc in my bag will pass every time.



Semantics. It's +/- .049999999999999999999999 grams.

From the tech standards:
Metric measurements are employed in characterizing the physical properties of flying discs. All linear measurements are rounded to the nearest mm (0.1 cm); measurements ending in 0.5 mm are rounded up. Weight measurements are rounded to the nearest decigram (0.1 g); measurements ending in 0.5 dg are rounded up.
...
<ul type="square"> not exceed 8.3 g per cm in outside disc diameter;
not exceed a maximum weight of 200 g;
[/list]

Triple beam, digital bah humbug.

Actually, both are good... or bad. It isn't even a matter of adjustment, it's a matter of quality of the scale. I've seen some very acurate triple beams and some very acurate digital scales. I've also seen some very inacurate versions of both. Adjustment (better known as taring or tare) doesn't matter dookie if you tare the scale and it thinks that 1 gr = 1.01 gr. :)

However, for what's being discussed here it really doesn't matter. The amounts or weights here are huge relative to acuracy and almost any scale will be sufficient. Yes, you might be up to .4 gr off on a measurement (i.e. a 175.4gr disc would read 175 on a scale that is only acurate up to .5 gr) but that shouldn't have that much of an impact. If you have a scale that comes in at .1 gr divisions, you probably aren't going to be off more than .2 gr even on a cheap scale. If anyone tells you that makes a difference in their throws, get them to make you a bet quick 'cause their a sucker-bet if I ever met one.

BTW - this is a really important discussion... yep it comes up about once every 3 months and yet the RC nor the PDGA has ever done anything to address it. That might be because they recognize that what makes a good player is skills and not the weight of their discs... If you're depending on the weights of your discs to give you an advantage, I'm betting you're getting you backside kicked in most tournaments. The weight limit isn't set to keep people from getting an advantage, it's set to keep us from killing innocent bystanders. In that sense, a 178 gr disc is no more likely to hurt someone than a 175 gr disc. On the other hand, a 230 gr disc can do some real harm and would be pretty obvious on the course.

The weight limit isn't set to keep people from getting an advantage, it's set to keep us from killing innocent bystanders. In that sense, a 178 gr disc is no more likely to hurt someone than a 175 gr disc. On the other hand, a 230 gr disc can do some real harm and would be pretty obvious on the course.


I disagree with your assessment of the intent.

I believe the intent is to keep the discs in the realm of "flying discs" as opposed to being "projectile discs", as more skill than brute force is required to successfully pilot a flying disc.

Neither the RC nor the PDGA has spoken to the rock to cause it to produce water, either. Some things are easier to do than others. :D

The issue falls within the ambit of the Technical Standards Committee. The PDGA has addressed the issue. The people whose address would have been on the address would have been Innova and Discraft.

As a player, you use an overweight disc at your own peril. Based on my kitchen scale and a sampling of the merch that flows through my house on its way to the IOS tournaments, a large number of discs marked to max weight are overweight.

As a player, you use an overweight disc at your own peril. Based on my kitchen scale and a sampling of the merch that flows through my house on its way to the IOS tournaments, a large number of discs marked to max weight are overweight.


That's why I never weigh my max-weight discs: I won't knowingly play with an illegal disc. :)

You could take a college class in epistemology. Then you could weigh your discs and still honestly say you don't know anything! That's how I get by. :D

BTW - this is a really important discussion... yep it comes up about once every 3 months and yet the RC nor the PDGA has ever done anything to address it. That might be because they recognize that what makes a good player is skills and not the weight of their discs... If you're depending on the weights of your discs to give you an advantage, I'm betting you're getting you backside kicked in most tournaments. The weight limit isn't set to keep people from getting an advantage, it's set to keep us from killing innocent bystanders. In that sense, a 178 gr disc is no more likely to hurt someone than a 175 gr disc. On the other hand, a 230 gr disc can do some real harm and would be pretty obvious on the course.



I can vouch for a 165 gram teebird cutting off the top of my ear. So if the weight was indeed for safety as you are saying, then we would all be using 150 class disc like they do in japan. Just because a disc is lighter, doesn't mean it is safer. It all depends how fast the disc is going when it hits you and were and how it hits you.

Richard

BTW - this is a really important discussion... yep it comes up about once every 3 months and yet the RC nor the PDGA has ever done anything to address it. That might be because they recognize that what makes a good player is skills and not the weight of their discs... If you're depending on the weights of your discs to give you an advantage, I'm betting you're getting you backside kicked in most tournaments. The weight limit isn't set to keep people from getting an advantage, it's set to keep us from killing innocent bystanders. In that sense, a 178 gr disc is no more likely to hurt someone than a 175 gr disc. On the other hand, a 230 gr disc can do some real harm and would be pretty obvious on the course.



I can vouch for a 165 gram teebird cutting off the top of my ear. So if the weight was indeed for safety as you are saying, then we would all be using 150 class disc like they do in japan. Just because a disc is lighter, doesn't mean it is safer. It all depends how fast the disc is going when it hits you and were and how it hits you.

Richard



There is no doubt that "all" discs are unsafe at some level. My guess is that the PDGA/RC sets weight limits to limit the damage within reason; that is, I'm fairly confident that the weight limitations are due to safety, not advantage. I am also confident that 150 gr discs are safer than 175 gr discs, which is why they use them in Japan. The PDGA isn't trying to make the sport perfectly safe, if they were, we'd be using cloth discs. On the other hand, I am confident that the logic behind using lighter discs per sey is sound and that is what drives the rules here.

The weight limit isn't set to keep people from getting an advantage, it's set to keep us from killing innocent bystanders. In that sense, a 178 gr disc is no more likely to hurt someone than a 175 gr disc. On the other hand, a 230 gr disc can do some real harm and would be pretty obvious on the course.


I disagree with your assessment of the intent.

I believe the intent is to keep the discs in the realm of "flying discs" as opposed to being "projectile discs", as more skill than brute force is required to successfully pilot a flying disc.



While I don't disagree with this observation, I think there is no doubt that some of the early heavy weight discs flew quite readily. That does not support your position. On the other hand, even if I were to disagree with your position, I would still feel that the difference is not about advantage as much as about making sure that we are dealing with flying objects vs. projectiles. I do think there is a difference between a "flying" projectile and the few grams difference between a 175 and a 178 gr disc. Hence, that position is not inconsistent with the PDGA/RC ignoring this relatively small problem, i.e., at 178 grms, an Orc/Surge is still a flying disc and not a projectile.

BTW - I have read enough commentary here and in earlier incarnations of the board to feel there is merit to the argument that a major concern in limiting the weight of discs is safety and still stand by that argument, I am happy to modify that position to include your's.

Last point, if the PDGA is concerned about projectiles vs. flying objects why would they not eliminate the thumber? That throw does more to turn the disc into a flying projectile than anything I've yet seen. For that matter, why not eliminate the roller, heck the disc doesn't hardly fly at all with that throw.

Neither the RC nor the PDGA has spoken to the rock to cause it to produce water, either.

<font color="red">Yes, but the job of the PDGA is not to produce water from a rock (that's the job of a Saint or higher). </font>

Some things are easier to do than others. :D

<font color="red">Too true, and the added cost of making sure all discs were within weight tolerances would be prohibitive. I think this supports my position, if it were really important, would they have not found a way? </font>

The issue falls within the ambit of the Technical Standards Committee. The PDGA has addressed the issue. The people whose address would have been on the address would have been Innova and Discraft.

<font color="red">Same argument, too cost prohibitive. </font>

As a player, you use an overweight disc at your own peril. Based on my kitchen scale and a sampling of the merch that flows through my house on its way to the IOS tournaments, a large number of discs marked to max weight are overweight.

<font color="red"> Agreed, I take the same path, I even admit, I practice with overweight discs, I paid for them and refuse to ash can them, but they stay at home when I play any round, serious or casual. Nonetheless, I still maintain that this is a small issue. </font>

You could take a college class in epistemology. Then you could weigh your discs and still honestly say you don't know anything! That's how I get by. :D



Although this wasn't directed at me, I must respond. This point I concede, I can't honestly say that I don't know anything, I definitely know dookie!

Dave Dunipace is a proponent of disc weight limits, and I've heard him tell the story of how he won the U.S. Open or World Championship or some big title, and how he was able to chuck super heavy wind-impervious discs up under the baskets the best because he was the biggest guy.

BTW - this is a really important discussion... yep it comes up about once every 3 months and yet the RC nor the PDGA has ever done anything to address it. That might be because they recognize that what makes a good player is skills and not the weight of their discs... If you're depending on the weights of your discs to give you an advantage, I'm betting you're getting you backside kicked in most tournaments. The weight limit isn't set to keep people from getting an advantage, it's set to keep us from killing innocent bystanders. In that sense, a 178 gr disc is no more likely to hurt someone than a 175 gr disc. On the other hand, a 230 gr disc can do some real harm and would be pretty obvious on the course.



I can vouch for a 165 gram teebird cutting off the top of my ear. So if the weight was indeed for safety as you are saying, then we would all be using 150 class disc like they do in japan. Just because a disc is lighter, doesn't mean it is safer. It all depends how fast the disc is going when it hits you and were and how it hits you.

Richard



There is no doubt that "all" discs are unsafe at some level. My guess is that the PDGA/RC sets weight limits to limit the damage within reason; that is, I'm fairly confident that the weight limitations are due to safety, not advantage. I am also confident that 150 gr discs are safer than 175 gr discs, which is why they use them in Japan. The PDGA isn't trying to make the sport perfectly safe, if they were, we'd be using cloth discs. On the other hand, I am confident that the logic behind using lighter discs per sey is sound and that is what drives the rules here.



I agree a lighter disc may do less damage. It just depends how far away you are from the thrower when it hits you.

Back to an earlier point. Can a player gain an advantage from throwing an overweight disc? I think they can. I weigh all my discs, so that I know I am not throwing discs that are over or underweight. Every disc that is illegal I return to the pro-shop. They probably just resell it. But at least I know I am playing by the rules.

Richard

when i corresponded with Dave about it, he said that discs were being made heavier and heavier before Innova produced the first beveled-edged golf disc in order to combat wind. he did say that gave big strong guys like him a real advantage and he eventually made beveled-edged discs (after first unsuccessfully trying to get Whamo and others to do it for him) because he wanted skill to be more important than brute strength in windy conditions and also because of safety concerns regarding heavy discs. (actually, those were factors but i think he also intuited that a beveled-edge would make golf discs fly better, and thus could be lighter which would make them safer and give everyone a more equal chance...)

that is my recollection of what he said, but maybe he will add his two cents here and make mine obsolete :D

He told me the skill versus brute strength part.

"Just because a disc is lighter, doesn't mean it is safer. It all depends how fast the disc is going when it hits you and were and how it hits you."

Richard

A witness. :o

[QUOTE]
Just because a disc is lighter, doesn't mean it is safer. It all depends how fast the disc is going when it hits you and were and how it hits you. [QUOTE]


World Champion Guts player Steve Trauger wanted to catch some of the fastest throwers at a recent PDGA A tier after Saturday's rounds. He brought a radar gun. Justin Bunnell fired a couple discs at Steve that were traveling 114 kph.

I doubt that Steve would have been willing to stand in harm's way if they had been max-weight disc golf drivers. (Guts discs -- like DDC discs -- are much lighter than typical golf discs and they have a lid-like rim.)

force = mass times acceleration. i'll take being hit by a premie any day over getting hit by a driver. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

force = mass times acceleration. i'll take being hit by a premie any day over getting hit by a driver. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


In franchise's case where the options are getting hit by a driver, or getting hit by a driver.....you have to calculate something like "True Cutting Power" instead of force. Lighter discs are easier to get going fast. Heavier discs pack more of a thunk when they strike.

What's safer? A faster cutting edge or a slower thunking device? :)

I'm less concerned with safety than I am with people having an advantage over others who are playing by the rules. Seems like the simple solution is to hold the player accountable. If we know we could be subjected to a weigh in, we will know well in advance that our discs are legal. The MFR's will continue to do what they are doing, but they won't be selling me any discs until they hit a scale. However, if nothing is done, which I suspect will be the case, I will just believe the MFR's weight.

I am inclined to agree with the advantage of heavy plastic, We had a Platter tournament here last year, the td made a few provisions, no fastbacksetc, I did some looking and found this (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000CK78A8/002-6227638-5910459?v=glance&n=3375251) Man I was throwing it well past guys that played ultimate with there pulsars and super nova's. :D

I'm bidding on some brass calibration weights at an on line auction. If I win, I'll check my scale. Then I'll check my next two shipments of discs.

force = mass times acceleration. i'll take being hit by a premie any day over getting hit by a driver. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


In franchise's case where the options are getting hit by a driver, or getting hit by a driver.....you have to calculate something like "True Cutting Power" instead of force. Lighter discs are easier to get going fast. Heavier discs pack more of a thunk when they strike.

What's safer? A faster cutting edge or a slower thunking device? :)



The slower Thunking Device is what chopped off my ear at over 425 feet away. Teebirds can be mean!

I have to agree with what someone else mentioned earlier. I am more concerned about everyone playing by the rules. Then I am about a freak accident out on the course. After having my ear chopped of, I am very careful not to throw a disc if anyone is remotely in the way.

I'm pretty sure that Rhett wouldn't categorize a Teebird as a "thunking device".

I'm pretty sure that Rhett wouldn't categorize a Teebird as a "thunking device".



425 feet away, slowly coming back to Earth. It made a Thunk! Of course it also Cut!

Regardless of the Safety concerns of disc weight. We should all play by the rules.

Play Safe, Play Fair, Play Smart

I'm pretty sure that Rhett wouldn't categorize a Teebird as a "thunking device".



425 feet away, slowly coming back to Earth. It made a Thunk! Of course it also Cut!

Regardless of the Safety concerns of disc weight. We should all play by the rules.

Play Safe, Play Fair, Play Smart



:eek: I thought it was a Blue Champion Orc , thrown by a shocked , pale faced guy named Rich !!!! :eek:

Still , one of the most bizarre , freak disc accidents I have witnessed , with a happy ending..............It could have been worse !!!!!! :eek:

Oh..........and make sure the person can hear you when you yell Four ......................even if speed boats are making loud noises !!!!!!!! :eek:

WOW...I took piece of a guys ear off once

Walked up to the guy I hit and he had his hand up to his ear, when I got to him he pulled his hand down, full of blodd and a chunk of ear hanging.

Why are peoples ears so delicate? :eek:

I once had a karate instructor tell me that 18 lbs of force was sufficient to remove someones ear in a fight. I never checked it out, but that did not seem like enough force. Maybe he was right.


WOW...I took piece of a guys ear off once

Walked up to the guy I hit and he had his hand up to his ear, when I got to him he pulled his hand down, full of blodd and a chunk of ear hanging.

Why are peoples ears so delicate? :eek:

I have a 148 gram Scorpion driver that will cut skin !!!!!