I know that different disc makers have unique disc ratings....I'm guessing this has come up before in the boards, but I'm a relative newbie, and would LOVE to see all the manufacturers have some sort of standard for the specs. of their discs for better comparison. The goal of this post is to request that the PDGA create a standard rating for disc stability, glide, speed, fade, etc.

gottagogottathrow.com has a pretty good flight chart. You can find it here (http://discgolf.gottagogottathrow.com/catalog/pdf/JoesFlightChart1.pdf).

Sweet....I LOVE it....but how great would it be to not have to submit to an outside rating to compare discs...If the PDGA has an approval standard, could they not accurately rate the characteristics of a disc?

I'm not too familiar with ball golf which we love to compare ourselves with....do they have a "standard" for the way they rate clubs...I am certain they have standards for balls, but not sure about clubs.

Great site though....its now on my bookmarks! :)

It's not so easy to standardize disc flights because you'd have to "throw" or project each one with the same speed, angle, height, etc. The manufacturers are the only ones who can accurately characterize the discs when the first go out on the market as you have the same person testing and rating all their discs. Don't just go solely on ratings. A disc will do what you want it to do if you throw it right. The best weapon you can have is to have a disc that you can do multiple shots with.

I totally agree.....I've seen a special a year or so ago where a particular company....I think it was Calaway testing Big Bertha models using robotic arms to precisely test their club models....and I know this sport doesn't have the same dough as ball golf, but maybe the PDGA peeps could invest in some type of machine to precisely test flight characteristic of a particular disc......maybe its too early in our sport (funds wise) but is this realistic in the future?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not b-i-t-c-h-i-n-g but dreaming toward the future :D

Personally, I wouldn't trust the PDGA to standardize anything.

I totally agree.....I've seen a special a year or so ago where a particular company....I think it was Calaway testing Big Bertha models using robotic arms to precisely test their club models....and I know this sport doesn't have the same dough as ball golf, but maybe the PDGA peeps could invest in some type of machine to precisely test flight characteristic of a particular disc......maybe its too early in our sport (funds wise) but is this realistic in the future?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not b-i-t-c-h-i-n-g but dreaming toward the future :D



Dave Mac is working on it. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Dave Mac is working on it. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Suhhhhweet!!

Dave Mac is working on it. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



dave's ratings:

overstable
more over stable
less overstable

:D:D

I heard that Quest is working on an "Iron Byron" for throwing and testing.

Disc ratings are a marketing tool / competitive advantage used by disc manufacturers. PDGA is in the business of promoting / marketing the sport, not the discs.

I believe there are probably four statistics I usually need to know...

Penetration/Speed
High Speed Turn
Low Speed Fade
Rim Width

Penetration/Speed seems important for me, more than anything, for windy days. The faster the disc, the less time it spends airborn, the less it is affected by windy conditions. Or maybe its all in my head, but it seems this way.

High Speed Turn and Low Speed Fade are self-explanatory (by the way, can we tell all the new players every chance we get that when you're asking for a disc to slow down and end its flight pattern you're wanting FADE not TURN).

Rim width is less important for me, but a lot of people looking at new plastic seem to ask about this. Some cite smaller hands, or comfort in the hand. So this is something important for a lot of people looking at new plastic: how wide is the rim.

I like the term penetration over speed,
resistance to turn is good as is low speed fade.

Glide seems to be a big one, that you did not mention.
The problem is that some discs will glide great at 50 mph and 1800 Rotations per minute will they want glide at all at 40 mph and 1200 rpms.
\
what we really need is to have a way to check each players velocity and rotation, and then we can be guide them into a disc that fits there throw through a chart!

If anyone would like for me to email them Gateway flight chart send an email to david@gdstour.com

Of course we feel our is the least confusing, the easiest to use and most informative.
we use a base 10 and rate the discs against each other!

Penetration is definitely a better term than speed for me. It feels more accurate.

As for glide, true, I didn't really think about that. It is odd because it doesn't seem to matter for me much. If I can grip a driver, I can throw it in my 410-430 range usually. All I need to know is the resistance to turn/high speed turn and low speed fade and I know how I need to throw it to get that distance...

Give me those numbers on a consistent basis from disc to disc and I can figure out how much angle and height to give it, be it TeeRex, 150 class Roadrunner, 134 Raging Inferno, Illusion, 150 Flick, ESP Pulse... Y'know?

what we really need is to have a way to check each players velocity and rotation, and then we can be guide them into a disc that fits there throw through a chart!



There is a tool I would like to have.
What works for one person doesn't always work for another.
The throw that works for one disc does not work for another.

To have an Iron Byron for disc golf would not work because each disc is designed to be thrown with a different velocity and rotation for optimum flight. A machine that throws the perfect throw with an understable driver will not be much help in evaluating an overstable driver.

[/QUOTE]
To have an Iron Byron for disc golf would not work because each disc is designed to be thrown with a different velocity and rotation for optimum flight. A machine that throws the perfect throw with an understable driver will not be much help in evaluating an overstable driver.

[/QUOTE]

I disagree, each disc is not designed to be thrown at different velocities/rotations? The flight characteristic of a new disc is what the disc does after after it is released FLAT.
The goal of an Iron Byron for disc golf would not be to find the perfect flight of a disc, but as a true comparison to other discs when thrown EXACTLY the same way. Only a machine can accomplish this because people throw with many different arm speeds. It's up to the individual player to figure out how they must throw a certain disc to make it work best for them.

I agree that a standardised system is needed to simplify the selection of discs and make the sport more accessible & understandable to new players.

The current rating systems all seem to be relative to other discs (in the manufacturer's lineup), which is fine once you know how certain discs fly. This is also true of independent disc flight charts.
There is probably no need to change this approach as this allows people to understand how other discs fly based upon discs they know.
It just needs to be internally consistent and have complete coverage of all approved discs.

Other issues include the subtle variations (eg Discraft's stability of 1.2 or 1.8) between models and changes in flight characteristics with disc weights.
And while characteristics like glide, fade, turn, rim width etc. all affect the disc's flight, in some ways they just confuse the issue.

The problem is how to simplify it and make it more accessible and I think that the solution is to reduce it down to a simple grid system of potential distance (y axis) and stability / throwing ease (x axis)

This way we'd have something like 5 types on the Y- axis designated by a letter (with examples Innova discs)
A - Putt / Approach (Aero, Aviar, Rhyno)
B - Mid-range / Multi purpose (Cobra, Stingray, Gator, Roc)
C - Controlled / Fairway Drivers (Leopard, Gazelle, Teebird)
D - Distance Drivers (Valk, Firebird, Beast,)
E - Extreme Drivers (Wraith, Teerex etc)
OR is E just for the Devilhawk? :confused:

Yes, there is a correlation between existing speed values or rim depths and the category, but its simplified. (and the letters nearly correlate with the type of disc)

Then there is the X axis which is just a numerical value from 0 to 9 which describes how easy it is to throw the disc at its optimal flight conditions (ie the speed & spin) that a disc needs to fly straight (stable)

Basically this would be:
Understable - lower numbers (0 to 4)
Overstable - higher numbers (6 to 9)
but it would also factor in the weight of the disc.
Some examples:
a 100g Roc (TRC) might be a B2
a 150g Roc might be a B4
a 180g Roc might be a B6
a 150g Stingray might be a B1
a 180g Stingray might be a B3
a 175g Firebird/ Monster might be a D9
etc.

I know it isn't possible to get sharp graduations between discs so it won't be an exact science, but its a start.
(unlike f-stops and shutter-speeds & film speeds (ISO) in photography - which have been standardised to make exposures easy to figure out)

The only thing left out of the equation is the power / skill of the player and how they throw a disc.
And that's where, if we had standardised discs, you could give someone an A0, A1 A2, B0, B1, B2 etc and see which one they were able to fly flat.
Then you can work out what discs are suitable for them from that initial 'disc fitting'.

Thoughts?

I like where you are going with this....well thought out. I also would like to see something similar to the way Innova has on their discs showing optimal flight patterns....

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q253/brycdavis/speed-10a.gif

If we had a chart like this comparing discs from all brands...it would be SWEEEEEEET!

It seems like there ought to be multiple ratings for each discs as the following characteristics change.

1. Power (spin and/or velocity)
2. Height
3. Angle

For example, a teebird can be thrown by most pros as far as the new drivers that are out if given enough height. It seems like to get the total picture of how a disc flies, it should be evaluated using a combination of the differing variables listed above.

I think you'll find that the name of this thread is "Plea to standardize disc ratings" not "how can we fully describe the flight and capabilities of a disc"

The three characteristics/variables you have listed are all related to the throw and are all subject to change.
If we are trying to standardise ratings, then these three variables have to be standardised / make them the same all the time.

If you want to produce a flight chart for a paticular disc that fully describes its flight characteristics then its going to be a multi-dimensional map including what you have listed, wind speed & direction, weight, plastic, wear, up/down hill, etc.
Maybe we need a physics engine, as in the guts of a disc golf game, that you can select all the parameters and watch how the disc flies.
Anyone want to start?

I think you'll find that the name of this thread is "Plea to standardize disc ratings" not "how can we fully describe the flight and capabilities of a disc"




I thought that's what a disc rating should do. You can describe a disc using some traits such as forward penetration, glide, turn, and fade, but using only 1 set of environmental factors (angle, power, and height) isn't going to give you an accurate picture of what the disc does, and therefore it seems like the ratings will be skewed to one set of variables, and inevitably, one type of thrower.

I think the important thing to note here is we need to develop a way to accurately replicate these environmental variables, like a machine that can generate a given speed, snap, and angle. I don't think the problem is using a lot of different variables, I think the problem is being able to replicate them again and again for different discs.

I think you'll find that the name of this thread is "Plea to standardize disc ratings" not "how can we fully describe the flight and capabilities of a disc"



I think the important thing to note here is we need to develop a way to accurately replicate these environmental variables, like a machine that can generate a given speed, snap, and angle. I don't think the problem is using a lot of different variables, I think the problem is being able to replicate them again and again for different discs.



Exactly, this is the point I tried to make earlier. If you try to include every variable to a discs flight then it becomes a review not a rating. A rating should be simple and easy to understand so that a beginner can use it.

Actually I believe that Bizzle's complaint was not with the accuracy of the ratings but the fact that each manufacterer uses their own rating system and you cannot easily compare Innova to Discraft to Gateway and so on. They should all use the same rating system. There ya go.

I think you'll find that the name of this thread is "Plea to standardize disc ratings" not "how can we fully describe the flight and capabilities of a disc"



I think the important thing to note here is we need to develop a way to accurately replicate these environmental variables, like a machine that can generate a given speed, snap, and angle. I don't think the problem is using a lot of different variables, I think the problem is being able to replicate them again and again for different discs.



Exactly, this is the point I tried to make earlier. If you try to include every variable to a discs flight then it becomes a review not a rating. A rating should be simple and easy to understand so that a beginner can use it.

Actually I believe that Bizzle's complaint was not with the accuracy of the ratings but the fact that each manufacterer uses their own rating system and you cannot easily compare Innova to Discraft to Gateway and so on. They should all use the same rating system. There ya go.



That makes sense. I agree the ratings should be easy to understand, and I think what I want is a little more like a pipe dream. I was watching a tv show on disc golf that showed how technology can analyze something as simple as putters by changing the different ways people use putters, and then using computer tracking to match the right type of putter to suit that players style. I think we're a ways away from that, but one can dream!

There should be a group of top pros that try these discs out and come to a consensus on the ideal rating. This way there are people that are great players and also have much knowledge about the sport. The PDGA must be in the forefront of this issue though. When they approve a product they need to consult this group of "raters" on their thoughts. This way when a disc is PDGA approved it is sent back to the manufacturer with a rating already given. REGARDLESS of what the manufacturer says beforehand about the disc. Thats the most plausible way to go about this issue.

the pdga need a "pro" like this for testing:


http://www.technotreninfo.com/golfandrobot/img/robo4.jpg

I was watching a tv show on disc golf that showed how technology can analyze something as simple as putters by changing the different ways people use putters, and then using computer tracking to match the right type of putter to suit that players style.


What show was that?

[/QUOTE]

Actually I believe that Bizzle's complaint was not with the accuracy of the ratings but the fact that each manufacterer uses their own rating system and you cannot easily compare Innova to Discraft to Gateway and so on. They should all use the same rating system. There ya go.

[/QUOTE]

Yeah...that's actually the initial plea I made on this thread. After reading through this, I'm thinking that it will need to be an outside organization who is non-biased and scientific enough to provide accurate testing and results. (Could be a sweet gig if you can get the companies to send you a disc from all molds and plastics for free :D/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D)

I see the usefulness of a standardization...though this will be for new discs only...thus AGAIN, forcing the thrower/archer to know his quiver - and his arrow's capabilities...when his discs are worn in and primed.

I'd like to see a distance contest with all competitors using the same BRAND NEW discs - ideally ALL in the same weight.

Come to the USDGC-they always use the same discs. Last year they uses Pro Wraiths. DX Teebirds a couple of years ago.

I was watching a tv show on disc golf that showed how technology can analyze something as simple as putters by changing the different ways people use putters, and then using computer tracking to match the right type of putter to suit that players style.


What show was that?



Not sure, sorry. It was on some On Demand HD thing. Really cool though, because it was showing different ways putters hit a ball using a 3D model.

I was watching a tv show on disc golf that showed how technology can analyze something as simple as putters by changing the different ways people use putters, and then using computer tracking to match the right type of putter to suit that players style.


What show was that?



Not sure, sorry. It was on some On Demand HD thing. Really cool though, because it was showing different ways putters hit a ball using a 3D model.



The Golf Channel has had many episodes like this on their "What's In The Bag" show. This show highlights different clubs and equipment each week.

Many of the large OEM's such as Taylor Made and Titlest have fitting studios that focus specifically on fitting equipment to the player.

Taylor Made is currently called the Kingdom: http://www.taylormadegolf.com/kingdom/

Titleist has about 4 options:
http://www.fittingworks.com/WhyGetFit/WhatisFittingWorks/FittingWorksExperiences.aspx

They do fittings from driver all the way through the bag down to the putter including the ball. Needless to say, unless your a touring pro then the cost to go through one of these studios is quite expensive.

Disc golf has a long way to go and grow before fittings of discs to players becomes piratical and or cost effective. I know the Gateway folks are working on some concepts and it will be interesting to see their progress as time goes by.

I'm curious to know if the PDGA peeps have any inputt on this? Are there any plans in the future to make some sort of standardization?