should there be a 2.4 cm limit on wing length?

How does the wing length affect the flight of the disc?
What part of the disc has to decrease as the wing length increases?

If a wings length is increased no particular part of the disc HAS to decrease unless the polymers you are using are to dense causing the weight of the discs to go over the maximum allowed for the diameter. 174.3 for a 21 cm disc

The flight plates could be thinner, the wings can be concave or the nose radius smaller to reduce the overall mass

Most likely discs with larger wings than 3-4CM would have to be made with less dense polymers than we are currently using in Evolution,Champion, Star, X or Z, which are typically 1.1 - 1.25 specifc gravity

The revised proposed guideline is 2.3cm not 2.4cm and only three discs exceed that currently: Double D, Low Speed Driver and Epic. They would be grandfathered.

Is the revised proposed guideline public someplace?

Hopefully it will be posted online in the next day or so off the PDGA Home page. The Board has it now.

3. Add a design limitation that would disallow any kind of projections on the bottom of the rim.
This is to protect against "cleated" discs for slippery upshots and other similar configurations that would reduce the skill factor in accurately bringing the disc to rest.



Does this prohibit any of the type of dimples that Quest has been using? Some of the early Quest discs with dimples were more like raised circles than the golf ball like dimples they are using now.

That wasn't the direct concern or intent for the spec, but depressions like dimples are fine. Basically the idea was to prevent projections from extending down from the rim that might be like little "fingers" or "feet" to grab the ground or potentially abrade someone's hand if they caught the disc.

The revised proposed guideline is 2.3cm not 2.4cm and only three discs exceed that currently: Double D, Low Speed Driver and Epic. They would be grandfathered.

what was the reasoning behind going with 2.3 instead of some other number?

We decided to draw the line a little tighter than 2.6 based on additional feedback since the first draft. The original 2.6 would have included all currently approved discs, with the exception of the Epic's assymetry. There is one currently approved disc at 2.6, one at 2.5 (Epic minimum), one at 2.4, four at 2.3 and eighteen at 2.2. Our discussion was whether to redraw it at 2.3 or 2.2. We went with 2.3 so only three discs needed to be grandfathered versus seven.

i appreciate the consideration given for preventing excessive grandfathering. business considerations are important. what technical significance, if any, exists at the 2.3 mark?

or potentially abrade someone's hand if they caught the disc.



I didn't realize that the ability to catch a disc with your hand was a driver for the tech standards. I thought there was an interference penalty for that... There's no way I'm going to try to catch pretty much any wide rimmed driver.

Certainly physical factors of players being able to grip the disc due to wing width has started to become relevant in this range compared to say when rim widths were 1.4 versus 1.5 for example. In addition, flight dynamics of even current models changing to ballistic projectiles versus discs that "fly" and the potential for manufacturers to progress unimpeded toward truly "discus" type designs was another concern and reason for drawing the line somewhere, at least for the sport as most define it now based on survey feedback. WFDF normally adopts the PDGA disc approval guidelines for their sports but perhaps they might allow manufacturers to explore more ballistic designs fo distance competitions after they look at the whatever gets approved this time around for the PDGA.

It's not exactly the same thing but I'm sure there are bowlers strong enough to throw balls heavier than the maximum 16 lbs allowed but the line was drawn there as much for human factors as anything.

There's no way I'm going to try to catch pretty much any wide rimmed driver.



While true, the guidelines apply to all discs including putters that people do play catch with. We just felt that having projections coming down from disc rims, especially putters and mid-range discs used for upshots, might create "brakes" for stopping on the ground and even in the basket. In addition to the catching situation, there's potentially more damage if you get hit with something that might be sawtoothed versus smooth. Again, funky depression shapes or pockets are OK like the dimples.

While I would have argued for 2.2 or even 2.1 cm, I think that a compromise position of 2.3 is not unwarranted. Chuck, would you say the major factor in driving this is limitation of flight (/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif) or the fact that wider rim discs are only effectively usable by some players, or a combination of both?

All the decisions including specs that we didn't change were discussed at length including the great feedback we got from many stakeholders in the surveys. We tried to avoid drawing too many lines except for parameters which we felt might move us too far from what everyone, not just the TSC, feels the equipment for playing the game should be.

There's no way I'm going to try to catch pretty much any wide rimmed driver.



While true, the guidelines apply to all discs including putters that people do play catch with. We just felt that having projections coming down from disc rims, especially putters and mid-range discs used for upshots, might create "brakes" for stopping on the ground and even in the basket. In addition to the catching situation, there's potentially more damage if you get hit with something that might be sawtoothed versus smooth. Again, funky depression shapes or pockets are OK like the dimples.



I'm sorry, I'm never going to buy this argument. The notion that sawtoothed edges are going to be more damaging to a player is premised on the notion that someone will be catching these discs. No one is going to buy a sawtoothed putter and then play catch with it. You guys are playing at being the government; you're starting with the premise that people are incredibly dumb, and trying to make rules that cover every possibility.

Perhaps you should write a rule that goes: "no disc with shaped charges in the rim shall be used in competition...

BTW - I liken the notion that we should worry about people catching dangerous discs to making the following argument; We should make golf balls 5 or 6 inches in diameter and soft, in case someone decides to play catch with one.

We'd be better off requiring that every disc have the following message stamped on it:

This flying object is not intended for games of catch!

Lyle, that was a minor consideration. The braking potential was the primary factor.

I understand that braking was the major consideration, but the safety consideration alone is a no-brainer reason to outlaw that type of disc. It would have been extreme negligence to allow those discs and not anticipate, and therefore counteract, the obvious safety issues.

Lyle, the stupidity of someone catching one would have been easily surpassed by the PDGA allowing its existence.

Isn't this a given? ;)


you're starting with the premise that people are incredibly dumb

This flying object is not intended for games of catch!



They could also be marked "Discs is not to be thrown when there is danger of whacking a person on the head with it" but people will still get whacked on the head, neck, hand, etc. It's a safety issue. Many courses play in multi-use parks and playgrounds.

theres plenty of approved discs that would cause real damage to a person who is acting in the role of basket. the safety argument is spurious, because we ignore the very same safety issues for most discs.

I understand that braking was the major consideration, but the safety consideration alone is a no-brainer reason to outlaw that type of disc. It would have been extreme negligence to allow those discs and not anticipate, and therefore counteract, the obvious safety issues.

Lyle, the stupidity of someone catching one would have been easily surpassed by the PDGA allowing its existence.



On the other hand, one could argue that someone who did such pretty much would get what they deserve....

Isn't this a given? ;)


you're starting with the premise that people are incredibly dumb





I used to think so, now I think it is mostly that people are incredibly lazy or hyped on testosterone. Yes, I know all about Jackass, but every young punk I see doing something stupid pretty much knows they're doing something stupid.

theres plenty of approved discs that would cause real damage to a person who is acting in the role of basket. the safety argument is spurious, because we ignore the very same safety issues for most discs.



Adding to this, there are innumerable sporting activities that occur in parks that are very dangerous. Discs have nothing on remote control helicopters and airplanes for example. The reality is that we are expected to use common sense in public (don't give me arguments about human nature) when we do not, the law holds us accountable. If I thwack someone with a disc it is no different than thwacking them with a boomerang or rock in a park. Either way, I should have been a lot smarter.

As they say, it's the thrower, not the disc.

Lyle, that was a minor consideration. The braking potential was the primary factor.



This gives me respect, by my measure, for the result. The concept that a player should be good enough to understand that they have to lay the disc in, without artificial means to hold the disc down, is good for the sport.

how protrusions could help stop a disc from taking funky bounces or rolls is baffling to me. think about circumstances where it is necessary to even worry much about those bounces and rolls. does the idea of having things sticking down below the bottom rim sound like it would even help? now add the fact that these protuberances are spinning rapidly, and i'd wager the relevant variables increased not decreased. doesnt anyone else ever throw a disc intending for it to land upside down in order to better control the post-landing randomness?

doesnt anyone else ever throw a disc intending for it to land upside down in order to better control the post-landing randomness?


OMG, you're right. We must immediately outlaw discs with an "up" side and a "down" side. Looks like its Wheels for everyone.

Isn't this a given? ;)


you're starting with the premise that people are incredibly dumb





It is for me. One that is proven on a daily basis, like the day I saw a family spreading their picnic blanket next to a pole hole and when asked to move responded that the park was for everyone. They came close to getting whacked until the park ranger made them move.

Stupid people way outnumber smart ones. If you choose to play catch with a golf disc and get hurt, then you are in the majority.

The only way to find out is to build a prototype and test it.

true dat. but raw science is not a Member Benefit :)

how protrusions could help stop a disc from taking funky bounces or rolls is baffling to me. think about circumstances where it is necessary to even worry much about those bounces and rolls. does the idea of having things sticking down below the bottom rim sound like it would even help? now add the fact that these protuberances are spinning rapidly, and i'd wager the relevant variables increased not decreased. doesnt anyone else ever throw a disc intending for it to land upside down in order to better control the post-landing randomness?



In the case of throwing up here yesterday (4 inches on packed snow), we were commenting that we needed to invent 'the Gripper' as we were getting huge skips off the snow surface. 1 inch deep triangle shaped spikes projecting from the bottom of the rim, perhaps four of them spaced out so there was still room to grip and throw the disc.

So, yes it would help.

the safety argument is spurious, because we ignore the very same safety issues for most discs.



hardly spurious. One doesn't need much brainpower to distinguish between the safety differences between a teebird and a teebird with sharp protrusions. Only a very foolish organization would approve a disc like that.

besides, I continually hear you state that "these discs wouldn't be functional anyway, so there is no need to outlaw them." Well, if the discs are non functional, why do we even need them? You are evidently balancing a safety argument you don't believe against a non-existent need.

Why are you so fervent to support a disc you yourself say no one needs or would use?

the safety argument is spurious, because we ignore the very same safety issues for most discs.



hardly spurious. One doesn't need much brainpower to distinguish between the safety differences between a teebird and a teebird with sharp protrusions. Only a very foolish organization would approve a disc like that.

besides, I continually hear you state that "these discs wouldn't be functional anyway, so there is no need to outlaw them." Well, if the discs are non functional, why do we even need them? You are evidently balancing a safety argument you don't believe against a non-existent need.

Why are you so fervent to support a disc you yourself say no one needs or would use?



I haven't seen those posts about how they wouldn't fly, and I have seen a lot of posts, like Pat's, that point out this is spurious. I don't see how a disc with nubs on it is a whole lot more dangerous than a Demon. Now if we're talking spikes then you have a point. Don't know what it is, but I'll agree, spikes are pointy. :D Of course, I would have to ask, how is one going to grab this disc and throw it? I suppose you could wear work gloves... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

The only type of protrusion that is really going to make a difference is a very sharp one. I feel comfortable in observing that such protrusions would make holding said disc something for the masochistic crowd; while I might argue that one has to be a little masochistic to play this game, I'd hardly say we all like self-torture.

Soooo, what we're really talking about here is nubs, rounded ones. I will concede that one should be able to grip and rip a disc with nubs. But, in reality, I fail to see how having one dent that is two inches long is worse than having two or three dents that are each 1/2 inch long in your head. Either way, it hurts...

well, i am NOT making a safety argument at all. in fact, i believe the mere mention of safety open us up to far more trouble than anything so far. the bottom line is that we dont truly know which discs are "safe" and which arent. only a foolish and irresponsible organization would make safety claims without any real science behind those claims.

the market will decide whether we "need" these discs or not. re the TurboPutt and the Wheel, i suspect that in the long run and all other things being equal, the answer will prove to be "not".

i am absolutely NOT supporting any particular disc. i am also NOT saying that no one would use these things.

think about this: if the wider rims are truly an advantage, the new standards propose that we lock those advantages in to the manufacturers of those three special cases via the grandfathering route. obviously, that means we lock everyone else out.

in effect, we are so upset about the new wider rims discs that we are granting the mfgs who already have them the exclusive license to exploit this rim, while banning all others from producing it.

this makes about as much sense as allowing 2007 Amnesty Ams to play in Worlds while barring all others.

i can defiantly agree with that, why would you let one manufacturer or two who surpassed this line of 'acceptability' and caused a rule to be made, have exclusive rights to the fastest discs by grandfathering them?

are the official numbers out to what will be ok and what wont? and what will be grandfathered?

and to address safety, you can hurl a midrange at my face and a 'wide winged' driver at my face, and im not going to say that one is ok, and one isnt. that doesnt make sense.

re the revised proposal (might need Chuck on this one)

E.14: 21cm (minimum diameter from E.1) � 2.3cm (maximum rim width from E.13) = 18.7cm. so how can the inner rim possibly have a diameter of 16.4cm?

in effect, we are so upset about the new wider rims discs that we are granting the mfgs who already have them the exclusive license to exploit this rim, while banning all others from producing it.




The TSC chose not to propose the expiration of grandfathered approval after a set time period in this revised guideline proposal but the Board can certainly address that now versus later if they feel it's warranted. I believe that those who look at the overall impact of the proposal will be satisfied that we were able to reasonably accommodate a minefield of widely competing interests with minimal post-guideline hassles from manufacturers following Board approval. There's no question that the majority of the stakeholders, including manufacturers, were looking for more guidelines in the sand versus continuing with a more laissez faire approach to standards.

E.14: 21cm (minimum diameter from E.1) � 2.3cm (maximum rim width from E.13) = 18.7cm. so how can the inner rim possibly have a diameter of 16.4cm?



The same 2.3 rim would be on both sides of the diameter... :o

"more guidelines in the sand versus continuing with a more laissez faire approach to standards"

with all due respect, it is more like they (the stakeholders) wanted to tweak the existing guidelines. it was not laissez faire at all. every disc submitted was tested rigorously under the current standards. it was following the existing standards, not operating in the absence of standards.

E.14: 21cm (minimum diameter from E.1) � 2.3cm (maximum rim width from E.13) = 18.7cm. so how can the inner rim possibly have a diameter of 16.4cm?



The same 2.3 rim would be on both sides of the diameter... :o

D'OH! :D

with all due respect, it is more like they (the stakeholders) wanted to tweak the existing guidelines. it was not laissez faire at all. every disc submitted was tested rigorously under the current standards. it was following the existing standards, not operating in the absence of standards.



Perhaps laissez faire is too liberal a term for where we were versus the new proposal. But words in the current guidelines such as "circular" and "saucer-like" had become more liberally interpreted beyond what many consider their fundamental meanings and original intent of the guidelines. So additional clarifications were needed as just some examples of tighter lines.

only a foolish and irresponsible organization would make safety claims without any real science behind those claims.




I didn't realize one needed science to "know" that a disc with sharp protrusions would be more dangerous than one without protrusions.

So Chuck, what is the final determination on discs such as the wheel, turbo and epic. If they were proposed under the new specs, would they fly? Also, a layman's synopsis of the changes would be appreciated.

The Wheel didn't make it under the current specs, the Turbo temporary approval will still expire at the end of 2008 and wouldn't meet the proposed new specs, and the Epic would continue under grandfathering if the Board allows it to continue indefinitely.

Hopefully, the PDGA staff is getting the revised spec proposal posted today so everyone can read the overview and the specifics if interested.

the Double D Driver and the Low Speed driver are also involved. both are illegal under the proposal, which includes language to grandfather them in since they already exist and are approved.

i'm hoping that the knuckleheads who complained that i have a COI with Quest (which i dont) will read this and understand that i am pointing out that this proposal gives exclusive rights to mfg wide rimmed discs to Aerobie and Quest for an undefined period. they'll probably say i have a COI with Innova now :D


james, i have not seen a disc with sharp protrusions. i doubt one exists. besides, the proposal makes no mention of "sharp"

only a foolish and irresponsible organization would make safety claims without any real science behind those claims.




I didn't realize one needed science to "know" that a disc with sharp protrusions would be more dangerous than one without protrusions.

So Chuck, what is the final determination on discs such as the wheel, turbo and epic. If they were proposed under the new specs, would they fly? Also, a layman's synopsis of the changes would be appreciated.



There they are, those sharp protrusions. You make it sound like someone is going to glue razor blades on their disc...

My statement would still work as "I didn't realize one needed science to "know" that a disc with protrusions would be more dangerous than one without protrusions."

Besides, even if we were derelict and allowed protrusions, you would have draw a line somewhere between dull knobs and razor blades. Or would that be too much regulation also?

With no line drawn, manufacturer's would aim to create a disc with excellent breaking ability/sticking in the ground. Innovative protrusions which are better at sticking in the ground will also be better at sticking into one's head.

I'm not trying to hang my hat on a safety argument, because the nature-of-the-game arguments are enough, I just react to y'alls claims that safety concerns are bunk. It seems like such an untenable position that I wonder what the real reasons must be. It's almost as if there has to be an agenda, because I can't fathom that any reasonable person wouldn't see the clear cut safety issues with those discs. I am glad y'all don't regulate the safety of kid's toys.

Wow,
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I was just trying to get a barometer on who was actually voting for there to be a limit of 2.3, not how safe protrusions were from the bottom of a disc. Maybe you guys can start a protruding objects thread, oh wait I'll start one now!
I am also wondering why there is an urgency to instill this 2.3cm wing length rule in such a hurry.
I started asking for rules revisions almost 4 years ago and now its like they have to pass these new rules before sundown.
From what I hear about 12% of the players responded to the polls. Of the 50 or so top pros I spoke with at players cup only a few even took the survey, so in my opinion the people who did take the survey could all be 890 rated players who can only throw 200 feet, which could be the very reason we wind up with a rule limiting wing length to the 2.3cm.

I asked if there was a way to have the average player rating of the 12% that took the survey and I was told they felt that the 12% was a good enough representation of the entire PDGA. I wish we could have handed this survey to all of the players at pro and am worlds as well as USDGC, this way at least we would have a chance for the Top pros and ams voices to be heard!

One thing I didnt realize is what an advantage the grandfathered in discs may be able to get if these discs prove to be going farther than discs with wings less than the 2.3 cm rule will allow the rest of us.
At this point I can't for the life of me see how they can allow 2 discs over 2.3 in and no one else can make wings this long ever again.
For this reason alone it would make more since to at least make the rule as long as the current longest winged discs ( I am not including the epic), so we all have a fair chance to have a disc with a wing this long!
Anything short of this would be obviously unfair.
Right now the DD has wing length of 2.61cm and the low speed driver(cyclops) has a wing length of 2.615cm

If anything the rule should be at least 2.615, but would prefer 2.7 and even 3cm so that we are all playing by the same rules.

Can someone explain to me why the wingth length is an issue? Is it because those discs are so much better or fly so much further? I would also like to know what age and divisions vote against or for this issue like dave...

tim, nice example, thanks. i cede the potential usefulness of the terrain griping spike disc :) the perfect blend of plastic, throwing star and SUV

You might even end up with right handed and left handed discs based on the tooth angle for digging in better with clockwise vs counterclockwise spin.

Why are they puting limits on wing length? I figure that eventually trying to make to wide of a rim would cause problems like grip, flight et...?? I mean if the epic was as wide all the way around as its longest wing it would be impossibe to throw without using a putters grip. I dont understand? any help?

kyle,

i understand it something like this: the wide wings have a far higher percentage of their total mass arranged around the outside of the disc. this accentuates the gyroscopic effects of the spinning disc. while the wing certainly has flight characteristics (ie, the disc does still "fly"), it can be thrown more as a projectile - hence the new term "ballistic projectile" in reference to discs with these rim shapes.

thrown correctly, gyroscopic discs have the potential to go very far. they are the same species as the aerobie after all. one fear is that far-flying wide wing discs will obsolete a significant number of installed courses.

wider wings also are harder to grip, so there is also an argument for fairness in limiting the width.

in addition to being harder to grip, strength helps when throwing these discs. so another thought is that these discs offer big strong alpha males too much of an advantage because stronger throwers have the potential to throw them farther.

I don't think it's invalid for any sport to spec size limitations on equipment used in competition regardless of any competitive or safety implications of sizes outside the boundaries drawn. Basketballs can't be smaller even though they would fit thru the hoop better and you don't use a baseball for playing under softball rules or a softball under MLB rules. The sizes and dimensions specified by the sports authority for equipment and playing field defines the essence of the game and that should be retained for securing the sport's identify and legitimacy as being one based more on skill than technology.

My statement would still work as "I didn't realize one needed science to "know" that a disc with protrusions would be more dangerous than one without protrusions."

Besides, even if we were derelict and allowed protrusions, you would have draw a line somewhere between dull knobs and razor blades. Or would that be too much regulation also?

With no line drawn, manufacturer's would aim to create a disc with excellent breaking ability/sticking in the ground. Innovative protrusions which are better at sticking in the ground will also be better at sticking into one's head.

I'm not trying to hang my hat on a safety argument, because the nature-of-the-game arguments are enough, I just react to y'alls claims that safety concerns are bunk. It seems like such an untenable position that I wonder what the real reasons must be. It's almost as if there has to be an agenda, because I can't fathom that any reasonable person wouldn't see the clear cut safety issues with those discs. I am glad y'all don't regulate the safety of kid's toys.



Yawn!

James, if the best you can do is equate the safety of kids toys to disc golf you're reaching. By your measure there'd be no guns, no Ball Golf, no baseball etc. You're examining the most extreme case of spikes on a disc as if that is realistic and saying we should regulate. You sure your not a liberal democrat?

Well, I am and even I recognize this argument as bunk.

BTW - You're correct, you don't need a lot of insight to recognize that spikes on a disc are dangerous. That's exactly the argument that we're making, that this is common sense. What you're really trying to say is that you, and those responsible for making rules, are smart enough to realize this is dangerous, but no one else is hence the need to make a rule prohibiting such. You're not even willing to give the manufactures credit for being intelligent enough not to sell such an item. And yes I know manufacturers sell dangerous things, but not like this and you know it. No one would sell an item that would used to play catch that has spikes on it.

kyle,

i understand it something like this: the wide wings have a far higher percentage of their total mass arranged around the outside of the disc. this accentuates the gyroscopic effects of the spinning disc. while the wing certainly has flight characteristics (ie, the disc does still "fly"), it can be thrown more as a projectile - hence the new term "ballistic projectile" in reference to discs with these rim shapes.

thrown correctly, gyroscopic discs have the potential to go very far. they are the same species as the aerobie after all. one fear is that far-flying wide wing discs will obsolete a significant number of installed courses.

wider wings also are harder to grip, so there is also an argument for fairness in limiting the width.

in addition to being harder to grip, strength helps when throwing these discs. so another thought is that these discs offer big strong alpha males too much of an advantage because stronger throwers have the potential to throw them farther.



This is an aside and a question. I don't have near the understanding of this issue that say Dave Dunipace has but there seems to be something missing here Pat. If it was all about strength and distance wouldn't you expect someone to be able to throw a baseball farther than a disc? There has to be some combination of flight and ballistics even in these discs that allows them to go farther? I understand your description of weight on the edge but in reality are you really moving that much weight from the flight plate to the edge of the disc to achieve your proposed effect? Given the thinness of flight plates anyway I don't see how that could be accomplished (although I admit a complete lack of knowledge). I'm going to go look up gyroscopic effects but I'm missing something.

take a 80 or 90s style disc, cut out the flight plane and weigh the two resulting pieces. the rim and the flight plane will be a lot closer in weight than the same measurement done on a modern wide wing disc, or on an overmolded disc like the Odysseys. new polymers and blending techniques are pushing even more wieght out to the rim. if i remember the numbers i was told correctly, the distribution of weight between rim to flight plate used to be roughly equal, but now goes up to the 120g:60g neighborhood. so, yeah, they really are moving substantial percentages of weight around.

take a 80 or 90s style disc, cut out the flight plane and weigh the two resulting pieces. the rim and the flight plane will be a lot closer in weight than the same measurement done on a modern wide wing disc, or on an overmolded disc like the Odysseys. new polymers and blending techniques are pushing even more wieght out to the rim. if i remember the numbers i was told correctly, the distribution of weight between rim to flight plate used to be roughly equal, but now goes up to the 120g:60g neighborhood. so, yeah, they really are moving substantial percentages of weight around.



Interesting!

Last year I had a week long debate, which I lost, with Morgan on gyroscopic effects and precession. My gut feeling is that the two are related based on comments made by Dave D. Precession has, by my understanding, less to do with distance than stability. Is the argument that having more weight on the edge of the disc contributes to torque? In other words, I still don't see how moving the weight out to the edge gives more distance. I now understand how you can accomplish it, but I still don't understand how it helps you?

Also, how much of the movement of weight to the edge is simply due to a bigger wider rim and how much is due to plastic types? BTW - I had the impression that the changes we're talking about started in the last couple of years and yet the "newer" type plastics started in 2000 or so. Was there a transition between "DX" Innova, and "X" Discraft, vs. Z and Champion plastics at that time or are you talking about reformulations withing Champion and Z and whatever Gateway uses that compares?

BTW - while the concept of more weight in the rim was passed over or even downplayed in my earlier conversations with Dave D. and Morgan, it is entirely possible that was unintentional. There is no question that a weight on a string has different torque properties closer and farther from the center (see spinning skaters for an example). Whether that is due to weight distribution or aerodynamics (i.e. arms out catches more wind) I don't know.

One other thing, in those conversations with Dave I asked him if you could accomplish the same "results" you're getting with wider rims (I use quotation marks because those results are not well defined in my mind) in a narrower rim. His reply was yes but that it was more difficult. No further definition (something I would expect if there was value in that information).

1. In the sport of disc golf and on virtually every course I have evr played on in a public park there is always the sign that states Disc golfers must yield to other park users. It doesn't matter if it is a CE teebird or a brick hard illusion, it will hurt if you hit someone as a result of disobeying rule #1. The saftey concern as it applies to the game is a mute point, unless you want to mount lazer beams to your disc.
2. If the wide wing discs are giving people such an advantage then why has it not completely demolished the distance record? Last time I checked it was a valk, can we make valks illegal because non-noodle arms like myself have a hard time throwing it for anything other than a roller, thus giving an advantage to those with babyman hands and noodlearms? Its called progression or maybe we should all fill our bags full of 1983 Kitty Hawk Drivers

1. In the sport of disc golf and on virtually every course I have evr played on in a public park there is always the sign that states Disc golfers must yield to other park users. It doesn't matter if it is a CE teebird or a brick hard illusion, it will hurt if you hit someone as a result of disobeying rule #1. The saftey concern as it applies to the game is a mute point, unless you want to mount lazer beams to your disc.
2. If the wide wing discs are giving people such an advantage then why has it not completely demolished the distance record? Last time I checked it was a valk, can we make valks illegal because non-noodle arms like myself have a hard time throwing it for anything other than a roller, thus giving an advantage to those with babyman hands and noodlearms? Its called progression or maybe we should all fill our bags full of 1983 Kitty Hawk Drivers



Thats why i asked what i asked, because i wanted to know if it was an issue on limiting "athletes" with strong arms so they wont have a huge advantage. But after reading this i dont think it is. I agree equpiment should be regulated, i mean golf clubs are (shafts etc) and bowling balls are like someone else said etc etc... I will be sad to see the epic go even though i throw it only once or twice a tournament. And to me it seems as if everyone can throw the wider rim discs further, not just the "big arms". And you mentioned the valkyrie being the WR holder but i think that was due to the circumstance of were they were throwing. It took something flippy and lots of glidelike a dx valk with that huge tailwind and desert conditions. I would be willing to bet a destroyers and wraiths go alot farther with no wind or normal wind conditions. Also it doesnt seem like dx and wide rim discs mix well.

destroyers and wraiths will be ok under the standards as proposed.

on the alpha male point, true, greater strength probably increases the possibility that the player can throw the disc farther. fast spin is a key also. fast spin requires practice and technique, so its not like you could simply give barry bonds a Double D and watch him beat Doss. besides, most courses have things like trees, so distance is not all its cracked up to be.

The alpha males are generally going to be at the pinnacle of any sport. Not many major league pitchers are going to hit like Barry B. or A Rod, but the MLB is not going to limit opposing pitchers to throwing only meat balls to poor hitters.

kinda what i'm thinking also.

but the MLB is not going to limit opposing pitchers to throwing only meat balls to poor hitters.



They also aren't planning to switch to a newer type ball that can be hit longer either. And no chance for aluminum bats in the Majors, which is arguably a better technology, but not necessarily more appropriate, for the dynamics of the sport.

does baseball have a clause that says "integrity of the sport" is a technical standard?

how does the tester make this evaluation? the proposal offers no tests, procedures, or guidance. if baseball does it, maybe we could borrow their language?

Although there is NO "physics" reason (maybe an economical or political one...) why MLB couldn't change over to synthetic bats IF IF IF they also "detune" the ball. I'll let Barry B. use ANY bat he wants and I could throw up a meat ball to him that he could NEVER hit out of ANY park...providing the ball I threw was soft enough! When controlling any sport's "increase in output" it always comes down to controlling the flight implement. Table tennis - it's the ball. Javelin throwing - it's the javelin. Remember the strike in baseball in the 90's? To get back the fans, they (rumor / conspiracy says) "juiced" the balls to increase the long-ball. They could also "dejuice" them to the same extent as the synthetic bats increase the "output".

Karl

does baseball have a clause that says "integrity of the sport" is a technical standard?



Don't know about baseball but here's some copy from the USGA that's relevant for us:

"The governing bodies believe that golf balls, when hit by highly skilled golfers, should not of themselves fly significantly further than they do today. In the current circumstances, the R&A and the USGA are not advocating that the Rules relating to golf ball specifications be changed other than to modernize test methods.

The R&A and the USGA believe, however, that any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable. Whether these increases in distance emanate from advancing equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, golf course conditioning or a combination of these or other factors, they will have the impact of seriously reducing the challenge of the game. The consequential lengthening or toughening of courses would be costly or impossible and would have a negative effect on increasingly important environmental and ecological issues. Pace of play would be slowed and playing costs would increase.

The R&A and the USGA will consider all of these factors contributing to distance on a regular basis. Should such a situation of meaningful increases in distances arise, the R&A and the USGA would feel it immediately necessary to seek ways of protecting the game."

And this:

"The main objective of Rules 4 and 5 and Appendices II and III is to ensure that technological advances in the design and manufacture of golf equipment are in the best interests of the game of golf. While not wishing to stifle innovation, the purpose of the equipment Rules is to protect the traditions of the game, to prevent an over-reliance on technological advances rather than on practice and skill, and to preserve skill differentials throughout the game."

Signs in a park don't absolve a sport from common sense liabilities.

Lyle, I think you are extremely naive to embrace the sentiment "It doesn't need to be regulated because all manufacturers are responsible." Back to kids toys, reviewing products is an essential regulatory function, precisely because the public cannot expect manufacturers to restrain themselves in a competitive environment.

kinda what i'm thinking also.



kind of like what? Using a sport that heavily regulates equipment to keep the nature of the sport relatively static is an argument you are using to support your position?

Here's what I found on baseball. http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2007/01_objectives_of_the_game.pdf

The spec for the baseball itself is just one paragraph and yet there are all kinds of rules on mitts, bats and uniforms. There guidelines end with this phrase:
"NOTE: Manufacturers who plan innovative changes in baseball equipment for professional baseball leagues should submit same to the Official Playing Rules Committee prior to production."

Perhaps their Rules Committee has guidelines on "integrity of the game" but I couldn't track those down.

"The main objective of Rules 4 and 5 and Appendices II and III is to ensure that technological advances in the design and manufacture of golf equipment are in the best interests of the game of golf. While not wishing to stifle innovation, the purpose of the equipment Rules is to protect the traditions of the game, to prevent an over-reliance on technological advances rather than on practice and skill, and to preserve skill differentials throughout the game."



So if you want the game to be about skill and no technology, then why do we need 200 differnet molds of discs in 20 different plastics? To protect the integrity and tradition of the game should we outlaw all beveled edge discs and go back to nite flyers? of course not. Do the wider rim discs give you more distance with less skill? my god no, have you ever tried to control one of these? Can you give a new player a wide rim disc and have them out drive the field?
The R&amp;A and the USGA believe, however, that any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable. Whether these increases in distance emanate from advancing equipment technology, <font color="red"> increasing athleticism </font> , improved player coaching, golf course conditioning or a combination of these or other factors, they will have the impact of seriously reducing the challenge of the game.
And are we going to place limits on what discs certain player can use, because in case nobody noticed we are throwing much further on average, and more trained athletes are getting in the mix, thus increasing the athleticism of our game.

And also since we are using and comparing our sport with the game of ball golf, which at this point in the development of the game would still be using wood shaft clubs and a non-dimpled ball. What would ball golf look like today if they limited technological advances in the first 40 years of the sport?

I don't see wing length as part of the crutch disc universe (over reliance on technological advances rather than practice or skill). The crutch discs are addressed in other ways.

Regulating wing length, or attempting to limit distance has very little relation to the skill of the players. In other words, I don't think anyone is advocating distance-limiting restrictions on the basis of helping out strong or weak players, or big handed or small handed players, or whatever. The reasons are simply practical: it is making courses obsolete. Furthermore, there is little good gained by the sport to allow further distance increases. The downside created by longer flying discs greatly exceeds the upside.

As to your argument that if we embrace distance-limiting restrictions, we might as well go back to midnight flyers. I don't get it. The sport makes a decision to address the problems with disc innovations and this means we should go back in time?

I don't see wing length as part of the crutch disc universe (over reliance on technological advances rather than practice or skill). The crutch discs are addressed in other ways.

Regulating wing length, or attempting to limit distance has very little relation to the skill of the players. In other words, I don't think anyone is advocating distance-limiting restrictions on the basis of helping out strong or weak players, or big handed or small handed players, or whatever. The reasons are simply practical: it is making courses obsolete. Furthermore, there is little good gained by the sport to allow further distance increases. The downside created by longer flying discs greatly exceeds the upside.

As to your argument that if we embrace distance-limiting restrictions, we might as well go back to midnight flyers. I don't get it. The sport makes a decision to address the problems with disc innovations and this means we should go back in time?



Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but, isn't the consensus among the top touring pros and much of the disc golf community is that the sport needs to move away from the duece or die courses? And begin to have legitimate par 4's and 5's? Many courses have been obsolete since the release of the wraith, orc, and many of the discs that came out in that era combined with increasing skill and abilities of the top pros. Seriously 17 down on a 18 hole course should not happen in competitive golf.

What's happening here is just part of the growing pains in any sport, many which have already passed thru most of it and have established parameters that define what it is to play their sport. They deal with technological developments as they impact their game such as whether and where to use instant replay, for example. At some point in their evolution, their leaders made the call on what constituted the essense of their sport, at least for competitions. And these involved multiple levels of competitions and types of competitions.

Most of the major sports played in schools have multiple governing bodies at all levels, each with their own guidelines to match what they see as appropriate. The PDGA has had to oversee many more levels of play than many sports so it's natural we would have to support a wider latitude of equipment types, guidelines and rules.

But some lines eventually need to be drawn in the sand. That's what the charge of the TSC and Board has been in this case, to define what equipment is appropriate to play our current game of competitive disc golf and to what extent it can change. That's not to say there can't be innovations which produce another level or related version of the game, but it would be defined as different.

Some of our other disc disciplines have only specific discs allowed to play their game. There's no reason there can't be discs designed with bigger wings that WFDF could approve strictly for distance competitions. Normally, WFDF accepts the current PDGA rules and guidelines in toto. But that doesn't mean they have to and could consider allowing further disc innovations for distance competitions.

Seriously 17 down on a 18 hole course should not happen in competitive golf.



Agreed. At least not after one round.

Hey, you are preaching to someone that has been in that choir for a long time, but I argue that the quest for legit courses has has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Take the sentiment you described, of producing quality par 4s and 5s. In Texas, we were lucky enough to have John Houck design some of the first courses of that type. In many cases, his original non-par 3s are obsolete now. Even marginal players can "birdie" them with new discs. No big deal say some, just have John or the club plant some trees, or extend the holes. Well, these are great remedies if they can be accomplished, but what will we do in five years if discs continue to fly farther? Just put an clamp on disc distance improvements. They have not made the sport one bit better over the last 15 years.

Deuce or die courses will not be obsoleted by longer throwing discs since, if anything, players can throw them less accurately (skippier plastic) and wouldn't even need to be used by the better players to reach those holes anyway. As James points out, it's the earlier versions of courses with par 4s &amp; 5s that are mostly in the open and primarily use length to create par 4s &amp; 5s that lose their challenge with longer throwing discs.

How far someone shoots under par has more to do with easier putting and using the inappropriate definition of par from ball golf than anything having to do with longer throwing discs. KC shot -12 under par on Winthrop Gold, one of our longest courses.

STRING LINE. RISK REWARD GOLF. A LARGE LANDING ZONE AT 350 TO 400FT AND A NARROW FAIRWAY FROM THERE TO THE PIN. yOU WANT TO BUST ONE 475 TO THE PIN? GREAT, BUT YOUR SKILL BETTER SHOW AT THE END WITH THAT SHOT BEING IN BOUNDS, OTHERWISE YOUR RETEE 3 IS LOOKING POOR COMPARED TO THE MENTALLY STRONGER PLAYER WHO THREW 375 AND PUT AN UPSHOT ON THE GREEN.

Sorry about the caps, not yelling, just working with databases, Personally I dont really care if they put a limit on disc design as long as it is within reason. None of the discs I use will be effected, I'm just not a sheep and prefer to question decisions such as this.
And the only reason I have brought up course design is that the point of longer discs making existing courses obselete has already come up and was cited from the USGA.

OK then, Markus shooting 13 down on Highbridge Gold par 68 at 9700 feet at Worlds and there are several other examples that have more to do with "easier" putting in DG than BG versus longer throwing discs.

Deuce or die courses will not be obsoleted by longer throwing discs since, if anything, players can throw them less accurately (skippier plastic) and wouldn't even need to be used by the better players to reach those holes anyway. As James points out, it's the earlier versions of courses with par 4s &amp; 5s that are mostly in the open and primarily use length to create par 4s &amp; 5s that lose their challenge with longer throwing discs.

How far someone shoots under par has more to do with easier putting and using the inappropriate definition of par from ball golf than anything having to do with longer throwing discs. KC shot -12 under par on Winthrop Gold, one of our longest courses.



I completely agree that longer distance discs does not mean lower scores, so why place a limit? Wide open par 4's and 5's with no ob or challenging terrain is poor design in my opinion, and besides, does the posted par on a hole mean anything in competition? or is it what your competitors shoot on that hole? What I mean is if only one person gets a 3 on a par 5 good for him, if everyone gets a 3 on the same hole what does it matter that the sign says par 5.


And so that everybody including myself at this point are clear, What is the definitive reason for placing the limit on wing width?

If you note Bob, I'm not primarily arguing the spec based on longer throwing discs, just tossing in what we know about the impact so far. It's not necessary to make all discs and technology suitable for all players. However, by having a wide range of weights allowed, even kids can grip and throw most discs already made. They just use lighter weights.

However, at some point which we may have already reached, the wider rim technology will not be available to everyone if they can't grip the disc properly just due to physical hand size or mechanics. Ball sizes in other sports are adjusted for the size of the hands that use them if necessary. To maintain our position as the sport for everyone, if not now then a few millimeters farther, the rim will continue to get beyond the grip of more and more players. The number of 2.3 may not be the "perfect" maximum number. But it's at least a line that can be drawn with the least disruption for manufacturers at this point in time before it literally gets 'out of hand' to change anything.

kinda what i'm thinking also.



kind of like what? Using a sport that heavily regulates equipment to keep the nature of the sport relatively static is an argument you are using to support your position?

thinkng that it is generally the alpha males who end up at the pinnacle of their sports.

Fair enough, I dont agree in limiting it based on a minority of players, especially at the pro level, but if it is for the good of the whole then so be it. I am pretty sure that most kids dont have the technique to throw those discs properly (beyond not being able to hold it properly) and they wont be competing against those who can for a few years (granted there are some freaks of nature out there)

In other words, I don't think anyone is advocating distance-limiting restrictions on the basis of helping out strong or weak players, or big handed or small handed players, or whatever.


it is absolutely a major consideration in this process! "bigger, stronger male" is a constant theme in the paper written by innova at the start of this whole process. six of 13 paragraphs stress this consideration. and 4 others are either intro or wrapup fluff, so theres really only three paragraphs in the entire document that does not stress the alleged unfairness alpha males get from these discs. i'll be happy to send you a copy if you want to read it for yourself.

The alpha males have the bigger hands to grip those discs which puts them at an advantage for using them regardless if they can throw them better than someone who can't even grip them properly. I'm not sure I would call Dr. Rick, Greenwell or Hammock "bigger, stronger alpha males" even in what they might consider their prime. However, they have been able to hang with other top dogs during those times including matching them in distance with similar discs. But they may not have been able to handle the current wider rim technology and compete at the level they've demonstrated in their careers even if they were 10-20 years younger and those discs were available then.

Sandalman, Thats what I thought the main argument was about as well.

All of the several decisions seem to involve multiple elements. Any one element can have a reasonable counter argument against it. But taken overall, it's why the proposal for the revised guidelines was produced as it is.

There is one currently approved disc at 2.6, one at 2.5 (Epic minimum), one at 2.4



What models are these discs?

It is an unfair advantage to the manufacurers of these grandfathered discs in approval. They would have a monopoly. If anything, their approval should expire over a period of time, in lieu of the new standards, just like the Turbo Putt.

Weel great discussion today everyone!
But, I dont know how the weather is where you are, but it is 80 degrees, light wind, and not a cloud in the sky.......take that your northerners, time to play some golf in a tshirt and a pair of shorts, maybe have a margarita at the beach for sunset

About an inch of snow and counting as I look out the window, on top of the 6+ we got Saturday. But at least temp has gotten up to 24. Soon could be time for some to grip a salty wide rim with their friend, Margarita. :cool:

Signs in a park don't absolve a sport from common sense liabilities.

Lyle, I think you are extremely naive to embrace the sentiment "It doesn't need to be regulated because all manufacturers are responsible." Back to kids toys, reviewing products is an essential regulatory function, precisely because the public cannot expect manufacturers to restrain themselves in a competitive environment.



Come now James, that's not what I said. What I said was that manufacturers are not going to make something that isn't viable. A disc with spikes on it isn't viable, from both the side that players won't be able to throw it and from the side that it will be dangerous to throw.

Manufacturers constrain themselves based on economic viability. The issues you are discussing go beyond what would be an economically sound disc to make.

Now, if you want to point out that there are some manufacturing issues that could be dangerous that would not be obvious that should be regulated then I'd agree. But we're not regulating the use of lead paint on discs. I don't think the average disc golfer is dumb enough to try and swallow a disc (well most aren't).

Manufacturers are constrained in specific circumstances, when children, who can't judge for themselves, are involved and when the issues at hand can't be determined visually. Anyone who buys a throwing star knows it's dangerous. If I buy a disc with spikes on it I know it's dangerous. I don't need a regulation to tell me so.

However, that discussion is a red herring. The reality is that what you're really talking about are nubs, you've moved into the arena of spikes because you can't justify the regulation of nubs as being dangerous. That's because you don't have any data whatsoever that proves they're dangerous or at least more dangerous than, as Pat pointed out, what's already out there.

Until you can prove they're dangerous, or more so than the edge of any other disc, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

I don't see wing length as part of the crutch disc universe (over reliance on technological advances rather than practice or skill). The crutch discs are addressed in other ways.

Regulating wing length, or attempting to limit distance has very little relation to the skill of the players. In other words, I don't think anyone is advocating distance-limiting restrictions on the basis of helping out strong or weak players, or big handed or small handed players, or whatever. The reasons are simply practical: it is making courses obsolete. Furthermore, there is little good gained by the sport to allow further distance increases. The downside created by longer flying discs greatly exceeds the upside.

As to your argument that if we embrace distance-limiting restrictions, we might as well go back to midnight flyers. I don't get it. The sport makes a decision to address the problems with disc innovations and this means we should go back in time?



Yes, but you still haven't proven that the newer discs are significantly longer thus obsoleting courses. You keep saying it, but you've yet to prove it. One way to do that would be to have Chuck see if the SSAs on courses have fallen over the past 10 years on non-modified courses. Obviously if all these discs are obsoleting courses the SSAs will have dropped dramatically.

Now I'm out to play a round at Bass were the SSA has from 51 to 33 in just a week...

first they'd need to prove that adding distance obsoletes courses ni the first place. most of the courses around here would not be affected even if a typical 30 year old beta male can suddenly throw 500'. and we're in texas!

I don't see wing length as part of the crutch disc universe (over reliance on technological advances rather than practice or skill). The crutch discs are addressed in other ways.

Regulating wing length, or attempting to limit distance has very little relation to the skill of the players. In other words, I don't think anyone is advocating distance-limiting restrictions on the basis of helping out strong or weak players, or big handed or small handed players, or whatever. The reasons are simply practical: it is making courses obsolete. Furthermore, there is little good gained by the sport to allow further distance increases. The downside created by longer flying discs greatly exceeds the upside.

As to your argument that if we embrace distance-limiting restrictions, we might as well go back to midnight flyers. I don't get it. The sport makes a decision to address the problems with disc innovations and this means we should go back in time?



Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but, isn't the consensus among the top touring pros and much of the disc golf community is that the sport needs to move away from the duece or die courses? And begin to have legitimate par 4's and 5's? Many courses have been obsolete since the release of the wraith, orc, and many of the discs that came out in that era combined with increasing skill and abilities of the top pros. Seriously 17 down on a 18 hole course should not happen in competitive golf.



I'm not buying this. I'd argue that either the course was always bad or that this transition happened when the beveled edge disc came out.

I challenge anyone to find me an 18 hole course where the SSA dropped by a significant amount in between either the Tee Bird (1.8cm) the Valk (1.9cm) the Beast or the Orc (2.0cm) the Wraith (2.1cm) or the Tee Rex (2.2cm). Where did this change come?

first they'd need to prove that adding distance obsoletes courses ni the first place. most of the courses around here would not be affected even if a typical 30 year old beta male can suddenly throw 500'. and we're in texas!



So what you're saying is that we're in Texas where men are men and the cows are scared? :D

The interesting thing you're pointing out is that the manufacturers seem to think that discs can be thrown farther as the rim widens simply based on the rim width evolution sequence you've just shown. I doubt it's just hype but has some substance. Whether the amount is significant enough to negate a course design is one thing. On the other hand, it's a defacto indication that some players can throw them farther indicating it's likely more due to technology than skill producing it.

In other words, I don't think anyone is advocating distance-limiting restrictions on the basis of helping out strong or weak players, or big handed or small handed players, or whatever.


it is absolutely a major consideration in this process! "bigger, stronger male" is a constant theme in the paper written by innova at the start of this whole process. six of 13 paragraphs stress this consideration. and 4 others are either intro or wrapup fluff, so theres really only three paragraphs in the entire document that does not stress the alleged unfairness alpha males get from these discs. i'll be happy to send you a copy if you want to read it for yourself.



While I recognize this, I think this is more about a bunch of old men who are afraid that a bunch of young men are going to whip up on them.

Take Matt Hall. Matt at 130 soaking wet (before he graduated from high school) moved into the 1000 rating area. He could throw a mile (well 460 feet anyway). Moving to Gateway, the king of large rimmed discs, didn't suddenly change his game.

Even if being Mr. Alpha U.S.A. was the difference, so be it. Them's the breaks kid. My parents hosed me, I'm 160 and 5'8" and Barry is going to always whip my donkey. It's sports - you want a sport where athleticism doesn't matter? Play Pool.

The interesting thing you're pointing out is that the manufacturers seem to think that discs can be thrown farther as the rim widens simply based on the rim width evolution sequence you've just shown. I doubt it's just hype but has some substance. Whether the amount is significant enough to negate a course design is one thing. On the other hand, it's a defacto indication that some players can throw them farther indicating it's likely more due to technology than skill producing it.



Wanna bet? Innova is on a marketing cycle. Every 6 months the put out a new disc that keeps the customers in the store. Why put out wider rims? The only argument I've heard from Dave Dunipace is that the wider rims result in more speed.

From Innova's web site:

Speed is the ability of the disc to cut through the air. Speed ratings are listed from 1 to 11. Discs with higher speed are faster. Faster discs go farther into the wind with less effort.

That's what is known as a hunk of fun definition. No where in there does it say that those "faster" discs go further than those non-speed discs in neutral conditions. No where in that definition does it compare different discs with different speed, glide and turn numbers to see if there are other ways the same thing can be achieved.

If wider rims give you more distance, why not say that? Why not say that We put this honkin' wide rim on here because it's gonna make you the longest guy out there?

Now I like Dave (based on his open nature and contributions), and I think that he is offering something of value here. But I don't think it's what people think it is, and I think Dave has been real careful about what he says.

I've seen no convincing evidence that the plethora of new discs do anything but... sell more discs.

Innova does not have to say wider rims go farther. The players say it for them. Is it coincidence that the rims have gotten wider and might have something to do with it? If anything, they were smart only increasing the rim width slowly. Look how many more years they were able to introduce a newer, faster driver. If they went to 2.5cm right away when the Epic came out, they might have lost all those incremental sales over the years "evolving" the line.

BTW - your notion that it's a defacto indication that some players can throw the discs farther is based on nothing whatsoever. I can give you thousands of examples of cases where the public was absolutely convinced that something was something and they were so dead wrong you had to laugh.

My classic case is a Harvard Business School paper. ATT was convinced that their profits came primarily from their big business carriers. After all, they made millions from those guys every year. They never even did an analysis until one year some young punk decided to do one for fun. It turned out that their cost structure on servicing companies was so high they were actually losing money and they were making all their profit on individual carriers (you know, you and me). Boy were they surprised.

It is even possible that Innova and Discraft think they're making a distance difference. It's even possible they are. But I promise you that the cycle of new wider rimmed disc production is more about keeping fresh products on the shelves than any real contribution to the sport.

Innova does not have to say wider rims go farther. The players say it for them. Is it coincidence that the rims have gotten wider and might have something to do with it? If anything, they were smart only increasing the rim width slowly. Look how many more years they were able to introduce a newer, faster driver. If they went to 2.5cm right away when the Epci came out, they would have lost all those incremental sales over the years "evolving" the line.



Wow! I assume you have testimonials? Show me one from Barry, or Ken or Des. Perception is a wonderful thing.

BTW - again, it may be, but I've still not seen a big difference in distance in my experience. I currently throw a 1.9 cm disc. I've thrown 2.0s and 2.1s and I've simply not seen a significant distance difference. I specifically compare and I'll be the first to point out such comparisons have huge weaknesses. Hence my notion that public perception on such things is irrelevant.

Again, I point you to Innova's own definition, wider rims have higher speed, speed doesn't correlate to longer distances in non-wind conditions by their own definition. If there is a difference doesn't it seem a natural marketing ploy to point it out? Even if there is a difference, what is it? What have you really gained? If I put them all on a machine that throws, and found a 1-5 foot difference, wow would I be impressed!

There are quite a few folks out there who are evaluating the newer discs for speed and glide. I believe there's enough testing and evidence to support their increased distance claims. Add that my experience as a designer plus that of our 100 member DGCD group watching where players land on holes of known parameters and there are some reasonably decent indicators discs are being thrown farther.

Sorry Lyle you're losing this one. The point is that even if wider rims do add ANY distance at all, it's not necessarily a technology enhancement that needs to be continuously exploited indefinitely to the benefit of the game. Our game is not about just distance but overall skill which is a paraphrase of a famous Jack Nicklaus quote on ball golf AFTER he learned to become a course designer versus player. Longer distance, even if not large, is only one of several arguments for placing a rim width limit. If the TSC is wrong about this, then the Board can overturn our recommendation.

1) provide the data on falling SSAs

2) What is the distance difference Chuck and what is the comparison. That is, what well established player who's game is stable is throwing these discs in a side by side comparison to allow you to draw these conclusions?

Guess what Chuck, I throw my 1.9 cm disc farther than I threw my 2.0 Beasts. Different discs Chuck. Even more so, my game changed. This issue is sufficiently nebulous for me to treat any claims of distance differences are Horse dookie. I need a good average measurement comparison. You have one, SSA!

What if putters have gotten better over the same time period? it would mask any effect. I thought I posted the link to the Course SSA history for anyone who wishes to check it but it seemed to have disappeared: www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php)

I would bet that most of the top players aren't changing putters near as often as they change drivers. Weak!

The problem is that 30-35 feet is only about 0.1 change in scoring average on a hole. You would have to have 18 holes where distance was relevant to even see a 2-shot difference in SSA. On open courses where you might gather this data, a 2-shot SSA variance is common just based on wind differences alone. And wind isn't recorded in the SSA history. That's why the argument proving distance increases have significantly affected course designs is weaker than the other arguments that have been put forth, but still part of the mix.

Guess what Chuck, I throw my 1.9 cm disc farther than I threw my 2.0 Beasts. Different discs Chuck. Even more so, my game changed. This issue is sufficiently nebulous for me to treat any claims of distance differences are Horse dookie. I need a good average measurement comparison. You have one, SSA!



It isn't that the wider rimmed discs aren't capable of flying farther. It is that at the same time they are faster, they are more sensitive to how they are released. If you don't release it within a small window of nose angle, it doesn't go as far.

If you are inconsistent with the nose angle, a slower, more forgiving disc will go farther on average. (And straighter too).

The other possibility is that you don't generate enough disc speed to make use of the wide rimmed discs and the added glide of the slower discs helps you out.

I've had an Epic since they came out. I've thrown some of my farthest shots ever with it. But I've also thrown quite a few "unintentional rollers" with it. It is a disc that I have resigned to use in doubles when my partner is already safely in the fairway and I can "go for it."

Lyle and Pat, y'all are still maintaining discs aren't flying farther? How much has the distance record changed over time?

I can give you countless examples of old holes that are obsolete. I am defining obsolescence on the ability of a top 30 type player and the fact that the hole no longer plays as designed. I won't even mention the par 3s that are now too easy due to disc technology. Victoria 2,6, 10, 14 and maybe 16. Virtually every par 4. Vitually every long hole at bass has been emasculated and bass ain't that old.

Actually, without going through every course, I can't think of only a very few par 4s that haven't been emasculated by disc improvements.

I sometimes wonder if y'all have even watched the distance of good players over time. Hell, even marginal players. I am throwing much father than 15 years ago, and I've only got older and weaker.

Also, this is hardly some resentiment agsinst better players. At most courses in America, since very few can be/are modified to keep up with technology, the advantage of longer throwers has been blunted. On a properly designed course based on todays distances, their advantage is regained.

actually, ive not made the argument that they dont go farther. in fact, i firmly believe they do (or can, anyway).

i do believe it is worthwhile to investigate claims that farther-flying discs have mattered as much on an actual disc golf course as this argument seems to suggest. i suspect, from a very dangerous combination of observation, common sense, and intuition, that some courses in fact have been impacted in a manner that most would view as negative. i also suspect that the course where it has happened had design and challenge problems already, and these discs merely exposed them. previously 1 shot in 100 might reveal the flaw. now on these courses, 30 of 100 do. however on most courses it does not matter. ZBoas will not become obsolete if 5 of 10 can throw 500'. neither will Maple Hill, De Laveaga, Pease, The Meadow, the IDGC, the Beast or the East, or most other well-designed courses that enjoy a healthy mix of terrain and foliage.

perhaps we need to approve courses instead of discs. that might be closer to the root cause of some of the problems we are discussing here.

I think it's also worth mentioning that even though discs are going farther, it is often older discs that are the ones that are going farther. Our sport is getting more athletic and the the players are getting better at picking the proper disc for their skill level, and the current conditions.

When the Viper was the longest disc in my bag, I could hardly get it beyond 300'. Now I can throw the same DX viper (I've got a big box of them) 375' consistently (well I could two years ago).

I've had to refine my techniques to control the newer faster and more fickle discs. These new skills directly transfer to older, slower, more forgiving plastic as increased distance.

The problem is that 30-35 feet is only about 0.1 change in scoring average on a hole. You would have to have 18 holes where distance was relevant to even see a 2-shot difference in SSA. On open courses where you might gather this data, a 2-shot SSA variance is common just based on wind differences alone. And wind isn't recorded in the SSA history. That's why the argument proving distance increases have significantly affected course designs is weaker than the other arguments that have been put forth, but still part of the mix.



I haven't read the entire thread as of yet, but given that the argument you're making is that these wider rims are making courses obsolete, this finding of minor differences seems inconsistent.

BTW - Are you trying to say putters have gotten worse or that SSAs might have gotten better because of putters? Either way, I'm still not buying.

Sorry Lyle you're losing this one. The point is that even if wider rims do add ANY distance at all, it's not necessarily a technology enhancement that needs to be continuously exploited indefinitely to the benefit of the game. Our game is not about just distance but overall skill which is a paraphrase of a famous Jack Nicklaus quote on ball golf AFTER he learned to become a course designer versus player. Longer distance, even if not large, is only one of several arguments for placing a rim width limit. If the TSC is wrong about this, then the Board can overturn our recommendation.



That's bologna!

So, if we've seen a change of 1 foot per added mm of width, to see a real distance difference you'd have to add 1cm. So Chuck, you spend a lot of time throwing discs with 3cm wide rims? You quickly reach a point of diminishing returns.

Your argument sounds good but it's sadly short.

i read it as saying the argument was weak, but we need to recognize the argument exists. that sounds fair enough to me.

Guess what Chuck, I throw my 1.9 cm disc farther than I threw my 2.0 Beasts. Different discs Chuck. Even more so, my game changed. This issue is sufficiently nebulous for me to treat any claims of distance differences are Horse dookie. I need a good average measurement comparison. You have one, SSA!



It isn't that the wider rimmed discs aren't capable of flying farther. It is that at the same time they are faster, they are more sensitive to how they are released. If you don't release it within a small window of nose angle, it doesn't go as far.

If you are inconsistent with the nose angle, a slower, more forgiving disc will go farther on average. (And straighter too).

The other possibility is that you don't generate enough disc speed to make use of the wide rimmed discs and the added glide of the slower discs helps you out.

I've had an Epic since they came out. I've thrown some of my farthest shots ever with it. But I've also thrown quite a few "unintentional rollers" with it. It is a disc that I have resigned to use in doubles when my partner is already safely in the fairway and I can "go for it."



Excellent point! Yahoo!

So, it becomes risk reward. Do I go with the longer disc that I might throw off target or do I use a less risky disc. Hmmmm, seems like a concept that enriches our sport.

Other than there are many courses in Texas and elsewhere where you really have to be offline for there to be much risk with a longer, less accurate throw. Maybe don't use a Double D at Winthrop or on the Dragon. But otherwise...

Lyle and Pat, y'all are still maintaining discs aren't flying farther? How much has the distance record changed over time?

I can give you countless examples of old holes that are obsolete. I am defining obsolescence on the ability of a top 30 type player and the fact that the hole no longer plays as designed. I won't even mention the par 3s that are now too easy due to disc technology. Victoria 2,6, 10, 14 and maybe 16. Virtually every par 4. Vitually every long hole at bass has been emasculated and bass ain't that old.

Actually, without going through every course, I can't think of only a very few par 4s that haven't been emasculated by disc improvements.

I sometimes wonder if y'all have even watched the distance of good players over time. Hell, even marginal players. I am throwing much father than 15 years ago, and I've only got older and weaker.

Also, this is hardly some resentiment agsinst better players. At most courses in America, since very few can be/are modified to keep up with technology, the advantage of longer throwers has been blunted. On a properly designed course based on todays distances, their advantage is regained.



I don't know Victoria, but I do know Tom Bass.

1) Do you really think that player quality hasn't improved since those courses went in? I might suggest you look at the number of players rated over 1000 as an indicator. I might also suggest that any real differences in average distance are due more to player improvement than disc changes. Despite the constant comment that the sport has not grown or is not growing the number of top players, great players, and very good players seems to have grown exponentially. Of course Chuck or Pat can better address this by looking at the average ratings of members over time (that isn't a great indicator but might very easily give you an answer). Even if it doesn't, assuming that increases in scores are due to discs and no other factor seems short sighted to me.



2) Tom Bass is made up to three kinds of holes:

short technical

Short open

Long open

Trust me, I don't care how far you can throw, it ain't gonna help you on #2 at the Willy, on #18 at the Willy on #10, #12 #13 or #14 on the Powell (all short technical holes).

On the other hand, #5, #8, #9, #10 (all long open holes), and on and on at the Willy haven't changed and still challenge the same as they ever did. The top players have always hammered them (because the distance doesn't make that much difference on an open hole), and average players woof them up because they just don't have the skill.

As for the short open holes, like #1, #5, and #10 on the Willy. They were bad 10 years ago, and they're bad today. They're still there cause players like their birdies.

A couple of things - the top scores on every course in Houston have been static for years. Most of those scores were set before I started playing 9 years ago.

As for the distance record, just up-thread someone pointed out that the top record was set with a Valk in the desert some years ago.

However, until we actually have a standardized process for measuring real records in this area, such measurements are spurious at best.

i read it as saying the argument was weak, but we need to recognize the argument exists. that sounds fair enough to me.



I understand the point but in order for it to have relevance there has to be a demonstrable difference. Heck, I could tie a disc to a rocket engine and shoot it a mile. Does this mean we need a rule outlawing rocket engines in the sport? No, no one is going to do it. Rules should deal with real problems.

If all the tweaking of rim width results in a change of 10 total feet in distance, it seems silly to pass a rule limiting rim width.

BTW - I do agree with you Pat, recognizing that this is occurring, if it is, isn't a bad thing. But recognition is only part of the picture, we have to then determine if it has relevance.

If all the tweaking of rim width results in a change of 10 total feet in distance, it seems silly to pass a rule limiting rim width.




They already have those "maximum" wider rim discs in use. You can find them at track &amp; field meets where they use circular "tees" to throw them.

If all the tweaking of rim width results in a change of 10 total feet in distance, it seems silly to pass a rule limiting rim width.




They already have those "maximum" wider rim discs in use. You can find them at track &amp; field meets where they use circular "tees" to throw them.



And that is exactly the point. If you buy that rim width = more distance, there is a diminishing distance return on rim width based on hand size and flight dynamics. Although I'd hardly compare a discus to any item who's weight limit is 174 to 180 grams (the current max weight range of today's discs).

There is one currently approved disc at 2.6, one at 2.5 (Epic minimum), one at 2.4



What models are these discs?

It is an unfair advantage to the manufacurers of these grandfathered discs in approval. They would have a monopoly. If anything, their approval should expire over a period of time, in lieu of the new standards, just like the Turbo Putt.



Anyone?

The point is it becomes a less well-defined sport with objects being thrown where there's no limit on certain dimensions. We have limits on diameter, rim shape, weight, flexibility, rim height percentage, etc, but no current limit on rim width which is perhaps more important than some of the other parameters for the very fact that more and more players won't be able to grip them if the rim width continues unimpeded.

Regardless whether some objects can be thrown farther or not (i.e. Aerobie), we don't throw baseballs or footballs in our sport. The "sloppier" the fundamental parameters are for the allowable elements used in the sport called disc golf, the more it will lack a clear identity and be seen as simply a recreational game. Just because the specs for our thrown objects have been pretty wide ranging up to now in comparison to most sports, doesn't mean it should continue that way if we're interested in professional growth for the sport. Better and more well-defined equipment standards is just another step all sports take in their professional evolution.

the committee's recommendation is that we allow Quest to continue to manufacture the 2.61 and 2.615mm rimed discs. the BoD can accept, reject, or modify that recommendation. my vote will be to modify the proposed standards to allow discs up to 2.7mm rim width.

What about the Epic that goes to 4.1?

chuck, the proposed standards have at least three considerations for approval that do not have a testing procedure described. in the current standards, all considerations have tests described.

"Better and more well-defined equipment standards is just another step all sports take in their professional evolution. "

in your opinion, does this move towards less definition and precision make this a bigger or smaller step in our professional evolution?

What about the Epic that goes to 4.1?

i'm hoping my BoD mates will have some input on that one. i dont have an answer, just some ideas that would never survive

chuck, the proposed standards have at least three considerations for approval that do not have a testing procedure described.


Which ones? We might as well discuss. "Integrity of the game" is never going to be a test in any sport if that's one of them?

BTW, I have an interesting idea that negates the issue that grandfathered discs would have a favored status. Give every manufacturer that wouldn't have a grandfathered disc if 2.3cm is set as the standard maximum, the opportunity to make one disc model with a rim over 2.3 up to 2.7cm and submit it for approval before the end of 2008. Each mfgr can exercise their one exemption or not. But after 2008, no new models approved over 2.3. Then, the issue of leaving these discs permanently grandfathered or phased out after some time period could be a future consideration.

do any of these have tests in place?

(9) have no negative impact on the integrity of the sport or its methods of play;
(10) have no projections of any kind on the bottom of the rim;
(11) have no projections that rise more than 3 mm above the surface of the flight plate;
(12) have no projections on the underside of the flight plate that are closer than 1cm to the plane
defined by the bottom of the rim;

What about the Epic that goes to 4.1?

the mfgs i have spoken with directly (three of them so far) dont believe the wider rims are much of a problem, if any at all. stting the rm width top the full 4.1 in use today would cause no problems, and put all mfgs on equal footing.

Chris, that appears to be the $64,000 question and kudos for sticking with it. On it's face it appears to be just what you described: a monopoly. I'd also agree that it needs to be addressed. One has to assume that the committee was aware of this and had plans to address it, or at least had a convincing response as why the appearance of an obvious monopoly is not what it appears.

Chuck has offered a "solution" of sorts, but it seems like a more defensible course of action is as you describe: grandfather all currently approved discs which cannot meet the new standards for a defined period of time, then let their approval expire.

stting the rm width top the full 4.1 in use today would cause no problems, and put all mfgs on equal footing.



If it is equal footing you are concerned about, which I doubt, why not set the width at 2.3 and either grandfather for a short time or disallow altogether EVERY disc that doesn't meet the new specs?

ok, why do you doubt it? lets get that out of the way first

Call it intuition, whatever you want. Basically, I think you are smart, way too smart in fact to promote some of the arguments you have promoted, all of which seem to undercut the proposal(s). Whenver I see smart people throwing out weak arguments to defeat something, I wonder, "what is really behind that?"

(9) have no negative impact on the integrity of the sport or its methods of play;
CK - No test necessary. As I've pointed out before, if we knew in advance what innovations might impact the sport, they wouldn't be innovations. We deal with them at the time they arise like any other sport.

(10) have no projections of any kind on the bottom of the rim;
CK - Self explanatory. Smooth rim all the way around is expected.

(11) have no projections that rise more than 3 mm above the surface of the flight plate;
CK - metric ruler

(12) have no projections on the underside of the flight plate that are closer than 1cm to the plane defined by the bottom of the rim;
CK - Metric ruler. However, Homburg will likely get a circular disc made 16.4cm in dia (if 2.3 rim is approved) and 1cm thick. Disc must completely cover it and lie flat on the table.

which argument is weak? that offering Quest an exclusive license for rims &gt; 2.3cm is bad policy? i'll agree some of these arguments are weaker than others. nothing strange about that. i'd like to know which ones you think are weaker and stronger - i wouldnt be surprised if we have the same opinion on most of them

look, i'm resigned to the fact that new standards are coming. regardless of what i think about the new standards or whether i would use a different number or not, i'd like the new document to be precise and i'd like the policies to be fair. thats all i am working for at this point.

First off I want to start by saying thanks for all the discussion on wide rimmed discs.
It is too bad though that there are not more individuals voicing their opinions here, particularly top pros.
I have a few of my own observations on wide rimmed discs.
One is that the perception that players with smaller hands cannot grip them is just not true, especially for the power grip. In fact several players, even those with smaller hands, have said they really like the feel of the wider rimmed discs. Does this mean they can throw them well? probably not. Right now wide rimmed discs are a bit over stable for most but if the technology is allowed to continue I am willing to bet there will soon be wide rimmed discs that will go farther for those players with less power because we will eventually make them less overstable and more controllable to appeal to the masses.
Check out the modern day competitive YO-YO which has lead or more dense polymers, around the rim. This perimeter weighting has been known to increase spin over yo-yo's of yester-year by as much as 3-4 times.
Larger rimmed discs WILL definitely spin longer and spinning longer can result in discs staying on line longer as long as you have enough spin to match the speed. This surely equates to more distance. Larger rimmed discs do not spin faster upon release only LONGER. More or Faster spin can only be accomplished by skill and technique and not necessarily by those with larger hands or bigger muscles.
Right now because of the increase in overall mass of current wide rimmed discs, we have almost reached the MAX size that high end polymers can be used in these discs and still remain under the allowed weight. There is A LOT of room though for technology advancements of wider rimmed discs in other polymers by simply making the flight plates thicker causing them to be less Gyroscopic, requiring less spin upon release for more stable flights.

Heres a little experiment:
Take a 150 class long winged driver that you think is over stable ( for some this may be a Valk or wraith) and glue a 25-Gram mini to the middle of the bottom of this disc or add lead tape, throw it and see what happens.

PS,
Chuck is there a reason you are not chiming in on just allowing 1 or 2 companies to have discs with wings wider than the rest?


BTW,
Just having 1 disc that is between 2.3 and 2.7cm doesnt really allow for these shapes to have different stabilities and we should be able to explore this technology. Building a mold and Pushing 1 through approval with-in 28 days just isnt practical.

(9) have no negative impact on the integrity of the sport or its methods of play;
CK - No test necessary. As I've pointed out before, if we knew in advance what innovations might impact the sport, they wouldn't be innovations. We deal with them at the time they arise like any other sport.
<font color="green"> this is a complete and total copout, designed to absolve the BoD of making any real decisions now. with a single person in charge of approvals, the decision about good for the sport rests in too few hands. this kind of statement is okay in a policy overview, but not in a tech standards doc. </font>

(10) have no projections of any kind on the bottom of the rim;
CK - Self explanatory. Smooth rim all the way around is expected.
<font color="green"> um, thinking things are "self-explanatory" is how we got into this mess in the first place. we can do better! </font>

(11) have no projections that rise more than 3 mm above the surface of the flight plate;
CK - metric ruler
<font color="green"> do what with a metric ruler. the rest of the tests are clearly defined. this one isnt. saying "metric ruler" is a very small step in the right direction, but you still havfe a ways to go to bring this up to the level of the existing standards </font>


(12) have no projections on the underside of the flight plate that are closer than 1cm to the plane defined by the bottom of the rim;
CK - Metric ruler. However, Homburg will likely get a circular disc made 16.4cm in dia (if 2.3 rim is approved) and 1cm thick. Disc must completely cover it and lie flat on the table.
<font color="green"> same as above. </font>

Chuck is there a reason you are not chiming in on just allowing 1 or 2 companies to have discs with wings wider than the rest?


There are already two remedies proposed which are phasing out the grandfathering in some time period or allowing each manufacturer one disc in the 2.31 to 2.7 range. Both seem reasonable options. The ads for the Double D indicate it can be "tuned" to change stabilities similar to the wording for the Epic. So one good design in that range for each manufacturer could be a sufficient compromise.

Well, some of your positions you have modified, but we have had:

1) Discs aren't flying farther now than 15 years ago.

2) Courses/holes haven't been faced with obsolescence.

3) If courses/holes are facing obsolescence, then it is either bad design in the first place, or they should plant more trees.

4) Safety isn't a viable goal, even with dealing with discs with protrusions on the edge.

5) We can have a list of approved discs for competition and an approved list for casual play.

6) The "nature of the game," because it is subjective, can't really be defined by the BOD and therefore (my presumption) should not be a goal.

There might be more, but I haven't read everything, and I apologize if I am dead donkey wrong but it fit my "profiling" of sorts.

(9) have no negative impact on the integrity of the sport or its methods of play;
CK - No test necessary. As I've pointed out before, if we knew in advance what innovations might impact the sport, they wouldn't be innovations. We deal with them at the time they arise like any other sport.
this is a complete and total copout, designed to absolve the BoD of making any real decisions now. with a single person in charge of approvals, the decision about good for the sport rests in too few hands. this kind of statement is okay in a policy overview, but not in a tech standards doc.


Sorry but that's the way it works in other sports. A committee of experienced people in the sport are charged with protecting the integrity of game and allowing appropriate changes when warranted. In addition, there are many cases where decisions have reversed prior approval.

Homburg alone wouldn't make these calls. Since the integrity clause is new this time, perhaps unusual innovations that come along would produce an initial review by the full TSC and not just go thru automatically if it met all of the other guidelines. Wording to that effect could be added if necessary.

A couple of things Dave. I might argue, although we don't know, that more mass at the rim results in less spin. That spin might be maintained longer, but the force required to get that mass spinning should be greater (hence the argument that alpha males have an advantage). Now, it is entirely possible that the amount of change we're talking about is inconsequential to this issue, that is, even weak players have sufficient strength to overcome the additional inertia imparted by the extra weight, but there you have it.

However, if this is correct, are you sure that you've gained everything you think you have? That is, have you looked at spin rates to make sure that players are able to impart the same rate of spin on wider rimmed discs that they are on narrower rimmed discs at the outset of the throw?

Pat assures us that the new polymers allow us to change the ratio of weight at 50% in the plate and 50% in the rim so that there is now say 70% in the rim and 30% in the plate. Do you agree that this movement is taking place or do you think it is more or less? Have you done the experiment, i.e. diced up some discs to see?

What measurements have you made to assure yourself that the transfer of weight to the rim results in a significant change in the tendency of the disc to continue spinning thus lengthening distance? Would you agree that a minor change might not have a significant result?

Whatever happened to the Apple, the Supernova or the Condor?

All of these discs were wider than most of the discs being discussed here. Wouldn't those discs have more weight farther out from the center than standard discs of the day? I wonder if they were significantly farther? Or perhaps they had really thick flight plates?

thicker flight planes, less rim.

"Wording to that effect could be added if necessary. "
chuck - please consider it necessary.

fair enuf... i can understand how positions can get confusing on the message board, especially since its used as a sounding board in many cases. let me tell you my current thoughts on each of these, rather than going into "i didnt say that... yes, i changed that... etc"


1) Discs aren't flying farther now than 15 years ago.
<font color="green"> i believe discs can fly farther today than 15 years ago. i believe throwing technique and disc technology are both factors </font>

2) Courses/holes haven't been faced with obsolescence.
<font color="green">some courses have indeed been impacted by longer flying discs in a manner that most players would consider negative </font>

3) If courses/holes are facing obsolescence, then it is either bad design in the first place, or they should plant more trees.
<font color="green"> farther flying discs can expose weaknesses in some courses (Greenbelt for example), particularly weaknesses such as limited or non-existant foliage. </font>

4) Safety isn't a viable goal, even with dealing with discs with protrusions on the edge.
<font color="green"> safety is outside the scope of a technical standards document. safety can be a worthwhile goal for some other effort</font>

5) We can have a list of approved discs for competition and an approved list for casual play.
<font color="green">if we are going to ban certain discs, then yes, absolutely, this idea is worth further consideration </font>

6) The "nature of the game," because it is subjective, can't really be defined by the BOD and therefore (my presumption) should not be a goal.
<font color="green"> thats right - at least for the tech standards doc. its a disaster waiting to happen </font>

There might be more, but I haven't read everything, and I apologize if I am dead donkey wrong but it fit my "profiling" of sorts.

[/QUOTE]

Me thinks James is confusing you and I Pat so I thought I'd add my two cents.


fair enuf... i can understand how positions can get confusing on the message board, especially since its used as a sounding board in many cases. let me tell you my current thoughts on each of these, rather than going into "i didnt say that... yes, i changed that... etc"


1) Discs aren't flying farther now than 15 years ago.
<font color="green"> i believe discs can fly farther today than 15 years ago. i believe throwing technique and disc technology are both factors </font>

<font color="red">I didn't quite say this, I simply asked for proof and pointed out that the differences might not be significant and again asked for proof. </font>

2) Courses/holes haven't been faced with obsolescence.
<font color="green">some courses have indeed been impacted by longer flying discs in a manner that most players would consider negative </font>

<font color="red">Again I didn't say this either, I did suggest that obsolences on some courses might have been there all along and suggested that some of the issue could be, as Pat pointed out, due to increases in the over all skill of the body of players. I even suggested a couple of ways you could look to see. </font>

3) If courses/holes are facing obsolescence, then it is either bad design in the first place, or they should plant more trees.
<font color="green"> farther flying discs can expose weaknesses in some courses (Greenbelt for example), particularly weaknesses such as limited or non-existant foliage. </font>

<font color="red"> I'd say those things are true. I've played enough courses to know that there are some bad designs out there and to know that planting more trees would make them better. Do you disagree with that observation? </font>

4) Safety isn't a viable goal, even with dealing with discs with protrusions on the edge.
<font color="green"> safety is outside the scope of a technical standards document. safety can be a worthwhile goal for some other effort</font>

<font color="red"> I agree with Pat here but I would state it a little more differently. In order for safety to be an issue, you need to prove it is an issue and one that what your trying to enact actually addresses. If there is no safety difference between nobbies on a disc and a clean sharp edge, then enacting a rule to outlaw nobbies has accomplished nothing. </font>

5) We can have a list of approved discs for competition and an approved list for casual play.
<font color="green">if we are going to ban certain discs, then yes, absolutely, this idea is worth further consideration </font>

<font color="red"> I haven't comment on this. </font>

6) The "nature of the game," because it is subjective, can't really be defined by the BOD and therefore (my presumption) should not be a goal.
<font color="green"> thats right - at least for the tech standards doc. its a disaster waiting to happen </font>

<font color="red"> I didn't comment on this either. </font>

There might be more, but I haven't read everything, and I apologize if I am dead donkey wrong but it fit my "profiling" of sorts.



[/QUOTE]

Without a doubt discs that are more gyroscopic spin longer.
Yes it does take better technique to release a disc with more spin but not necessarily more strength.

There are not too many players throwing far by brute strength alone!
A players throw could be weak in several areas:

1) lacking technique
2) lacking velocity
3) Lacking in spin
4) even if you are Strong in all 3 of these above you can have off axis rotation that can kill your distance.


However, if this is correct, are you sure that you've gained everything you think you have?
What exactly do you mean by gained?

That is, have you looked at spin rates to make sure that players are able to impart the same rate of spin on wider rimmed discs that they are on narrower rimmed discs at the outset of the throw?

Both speed and rotation are at their max upon release and will only decrease throughout the flight.
There is a philosophy that springy/flexible discs and certain styles of grip are creating faster launch speeds and rotations, but I have not tried to test this yet.

Pat assures us that the new polymers allow us to change the ratio of weight at 50% in the plate and 50% in the rim so that there is now say 70% in the rim and 30% in the plate. Do you agree that this movement is taking place or do you think it is more or less?

In a 175 gram Illusion ( which is probably the MOST Gyroscopic disc besides the, Cyclops, DD and epic) the rim weighs about 115 grams and the flight plate 60, so that�s about 2-1 or 65-35.
This is mostly due to the disc design and can also be affected by the profile of injection.




Have you done the experiment, i.e. diced up some discs to see?

Of course I have.
In fact, I have cut almost every single disc ever made in � to check out the profiles and many other discs I have cut out the flight plate to measure the ratio of wing to flight plate.

What measurements have you made to assure yourself that the transfer of weight to the rim results in a significant change in the tendency of the disc to continue spinning thus lengthening distance?
This is a no Brainer, discs that are more gyroscopic spin longer, the longer a disc spins the farther it will fly.
Do you actually question this?

When the epic came out, we cut out a section of the underside of the wing and filled it with metal to see what would happen to a disc with weight added to one spot on the wing.
The results were significant and very noticeable as these perimeter weighted discs were flying farther by 10-15% than other discs without the added weight.

I have also taped 50 grams of flat plastic to the underside of 125g discs reversing the gyroscopic effect making it more centrifugal. These discs were not going as far but were easier to flip up and were quite a bit less over stable.
Another example is a foam disc that Joe G has for his company.
This disc is the epitome of a non gyroscopic disc and as these discs are flung, as soon as they lose spin they drop. This happens rather quickly, within about 30 feet!

Would you agree that a minor change might not have a significant result?

No I strongly disagree here!!!
I will give you some examples.
1) .003 thousands of flash on the bottom of a disc WILL make it more over stable.
Trim off this flash and it will have less resistance to turn.
2) 5 seconds of additional hold time will change the shape of a disc and most likely make it more over stable. Reduce it by 5 seconds and it will be less over stable.
3) are you familiar with players constantly complaining about one run being better than another?
The differences between these runs are very minor, sometimes almost unnoticeable to the naked eye!

So Yes,,, minor changes can produce significant results

1. You still didn't answer the question, does moving more weight to the edge of the disc result in slower spin speeds at release? More tendency to spin only pays off if you have the same level of spin at release.

2. You also didn't answer another question. I now know what the weight distribution in an Illusion is. What is the difference in weight between the rim of said Illusion and the flight plate vs that of a Saber or one of your earlier generation discs?

I do not question that discs which have more weight at the rim spin longer. I question whether you've measured the differences since you've not discussed such measurements. It is entirely possible that the amount of weight transfer relative to decreases in a player's ability to bring the disc up to spin speed cancel out. No one has done the experiment, or at least no one has said they've done the experiment.

I spent 12 years in academic science. The propensity for people to understand basic scientific laws and make assumptions about results is unbounded. Their ability to inherently recognize all of the physical changes that are affecting the situation is incredibly limited.

It is entirely possible that what you, and many others think is happening is happening. It is also entirely possible it is not. The only real way to know is by doing some real experimentation.

Even the fairly bad experiment being done by the Flying Disc Magazine seems more complete than the anecdotal evidence being presented here. "Oh, numerous players have told us there is a difference."

There's this wonderful effect called getting what you expect. Players are buying these discs with the expectation they will fly farther. People typically see what they expect to see when they don't do accurate measurements. Their eye is fooled by their desire. These are the same players who's claims of distance have led to the phenomenon known as MB distance; the tendency to add something like 10% to your real distance when posting on the internet. Yet somehow they've become incredibly accurate at comparing disc flights in this situation.

So Dave, the physical phenomenon we are discussing is a real one, well documented in the scientific literature. I'm simply asking for someone, anyone, to demonstrate that the phenomenon is really resulting in farther flying discs by demonstrating that there actually has been a change in weight distribution (a bigger wing doesn't mean more weight is out there, as I'm sure you know). And then I'm asking them to show that no other changes in the disc shape or player's ability to throw these discs have changed such that you've not really gained anything.

Most importantly and the real point, I'm asking someone to show that that even if there is a difference, that that difference is significant. That question is based on the topic of this thread. That such discs should be limited because they are going to make courses obsolete.

No one has done any of these things.

BTW - your notion of small difference was very different than the one I meant. I concede your point and it is an excellent one. Minor differences in a disc can result in huge changes. I might point out that this same arguement can be used to counter the accepted notion that more weight in the rim will automatically result in longer flight. Minor differences that accompany that change may... well I'm sure you get the point.

On the other hand. The actual point I was trying to make so poorly was that in the event that more weight in the rim did result in farther flight, if that difference was minor, say an additional couple of feet between say a Double D and a Saber, then have you really changed the sport? Have you made every course out there obsolete?

It is entirely possible that you have. I doubt it but I would not conclude anything until I had actually looked to see. Say by examining SSAs and other issues. I'd also have to question what defines a course as obsolete. I might argue that based on perception, any course with an SSA under say 65 is in my opinion obsolete. That is because I think only these really difficult courses really measure the sport. That means that those other courses (say between SSA 54 and 64) became obsolete not because of changes in disc technology, but because changes in what I accept as challenging for the sport.

Final points Dave.

I've also done the weight distribution experiments. I find that you get the same thing you get with an Epic. A wildly unstable disc that does different things depending on how you release it. That includes flying further some of the time.

More importantly, do you think that gluing a mini to the bottom of a disc might affect anything besides weight distribution?

i'm not sure were lyle is going with this at this point; i though that overall dave and lyle were on the same side.

anywayz, a rim-weighted disc will spin longer than a center-weighted one, all other things being equal. that does not mean it will necessarily go farther. rim-weighted discs tend to be more overstable, so they might just go 150' and then dive into the ground. that they are spinning faster than their center-weighted cousin didnt really help their distance. wing shape can help reduce the stability, but will still require skill to exploit.

i'm not sure were lyle is going with this at this point; i though that overall dave and lyle were on the same side.

anywayz, a rim-weighted disc will spin longer than a center-weighted one, all other things being equal. that does not mean it will necessarily go farther. rim-weighted discs tend to be more overstable, so they might just go 150' and then dive into the ground. that they are spinning faster than their center-weighted cousin didnt really help their distance. wing shape can help reduce the stability, but will still require skill to exploit.



Good point:

two issues for me

1) Do we need a rule governing rim width, are you really gaining enough over what you can add to make a difference. Dave is caught in a catch 22, he obviously supports wider rims but can't argue that it is irrelevant.

2) Does the added distance, if it occurs, really obsolete courses? Same issue, do we need to regulate.

Za would be proud, I'm becoming a libertarian when it comes to disc golf.

last nite we talked thru a lot of topics on the tech standards proposal. some items were refined, some are still being discussed. we've scheduled a followup meeting for the 13th. a rewrite of the proposal will be posted as soon as it can be brought into shape. this post is not any sort of official announcement, just a quick note about the general progress and where we are.

I guess I can't figure out how to reply within a quote without having it merge back together: Any help?


1. You still didn't answer the question, does moving more weight to the edge of the disc result in slower spin speeds at release?
Spin speeds at release are going to be what they are regardless of the shape of the wing.
Maintaining the spin speed longer is easier with a gyroscopic disc over a centrifugal one.
The single biggest factor in changing spin speed on release is grip.

More tendency to spin only pays off if you have the same level of spin at release.
Not sure what this means, so I have no reply!

2. You also didn't answer another question. I now know what the weight distribution in an Illusion is. What is the difference in weight between the rim of said Illusion and the flight plate vs that of a Saber or one of your earlier generation discs?
A sabre has an .085- .090 tick flight plate.
The ratio of flight plate to wing is almost equal in a 175 gram disc.
I have thrown an E sabre 535' with a 30mph wind and the throw was about 60-70 feet high.
I have thrown an Illusion about 560 with no wind and this throw was only about 12-15 feet high.
They are 2 discs that require completely different throws for max Distance.
A Sabre, because of the thick flight plate is a driver in a mid-ranges body. most discs that are the shape of the Sabre are usually about .070 thick in the flight plate.

I do not question that discs which have more weight at the rim spin longer. I question whether you've measured the differences since you've not discussed such measurements.
I'm sure there is a math formula that can be used here, but no I have not measured the differences.

It is entirely possible that the amount of weight transfer relative to decreases in a player's ability to bring the disc up to spin speed cancel out. No one has done the experiment, or at least no one has said they've done the experiment.
I think this is what is called too over stable for you buddy, try a lighter discs or one with less weight on the wing. This is also why begginners can throw mid-range farther.
They can never get enough spin on the more gyroscopic discs to have a "stable flight"

I spent 12 years in academic science. The propensity for people to understand basic scientific laws and make assumptions about results is unbounded. Their ability to inherently recognize all of the physical changes that are affecting the situation is incredibly limited.

It is entirely possible that what you, and many others think is happening is happening. It is also entirely possible it is not. The only real way to know is by doing some real experimentation.

I agree,,, and with tachometers and chronographs we may be able to develop a system for checking spin speed and velocity of players AND discs.
It would help to have a mechanical device that could be adjusted to repeat spin speeds and launch velocities.


Even the fairly bad experiment being done by the Flying Disc Magazine seems more complete than the anecdotal evidence being presented here. "Oh, numerous players have told us there is a difference."

I have not heard of any results from their testing,,,have you??

There's this wonderful effect called getting what you expect. Players are buying these discs with the expectation they will fly farther. People typically see what they expect to see when they don't do accurate measurements. Their eye is fooled by their desire. These are the same players who's claims of distance have led to the phenomenon known as MB distance; the tendency to add something like 10% to your real distance when posting on the internet. Yet somehow they've become incredibly accurate at comparing disc flights in this situation.

So Dave, the physical phenomenon we are discussing is a real one, well documented in the scientific literature. I'm simply asking for someone, anyone, to demonstrate that the phenomenon is really resulting in farther flying discs by demonstrating that there actually has been a change in weight distribution (a bigger wing doesn't mean more weight is out there, as I'm sure you know). And then I'm asking them to show that no other changes in the disc shape or player's ability to throw these discs have changed such that you've not really gained anything.

Most importantly and the real point, I'm asking someone to show that that even if there is a difference, that that difference is significant. That question is based on the topic of this thread. That such discs should be limited because they are going to make courses obsolete.

No one has done any of these things.


The reality is we were the first company to have the wide rimmed discs, yes even before the epic, unfortunately the wing shapes and flight plate to rim ratio caused these discs to be too overstable for most players, especially those who do not have a lot of power. we do have plans to produce wider rimmed discs that have thicker flight plates reducing the gyroscopic effects and adding some control!
There is so many more designs that can be made for discs it's sick!!!!!!!!
We are really only scratching the surface, and while on the subject, surface technology ( on the top and on the wing) will bring the biggest increase in distance and control over the next few years.

Lyle,,,
I see your other post about me being in a catch 22 and I agree.
I am for wider rimmed discs but only for the fact that another company or 2 will be allowed to have them.
I can live with the 2.2 cm length of our high speed drivers, but if someone else can make a 2.6 than I should be able to as well, regardless if their grandfather made them before the rule change or not :D

To answer the question, no , there is not a real significant increase in distance with wide rimmed discs,,, YET.
Furthermore no one discs will make ANY course obsolete.
You can not and should not throw long winged drivers on short holes and it produces much better results to throw slower discs on longer holes of you have the skills, even if this skill is power.
Long rimmed discs are meant for long throws.
This game is still mostly about putting, especially for 95% of the courses in the ground.

Today I threw a prototype of our new short winged driver, the APEX which is t-byrdish in flight,,,, so we will be working on devloping short winged drivers as well :D:D:D

Let me begin by thanking you for your time and reply Dave. I like your realistic approach to the issue per say! Basically, if I understand you correctly, you support the position that rules changes to limit disc "distance" aren't really necessary because the notion that this one factor is going to obsolete courses is too simplistic. I support that position.

I still only have one real issue and that is the one where I'm confusing you.

Going back to physics 101, when we increase Mass, it takes more force to get that Mass moving. Depending on how you view disc spin, you have to ask, if you put more weight in the rim, does it make it harder to get the disc spinning? i.e. is the wrist flick as described by Dave D. and documented by Blake T. effected by increased Mass. Obviously if the Mass is well below the force available in a wrist flick, no. But if the change is Mass now means that the force of a wrist flick is insufficient to achieve the same spin then you haven't gained anything. Your disc would spin longer if you got it up to the same spin speed, but you don't have the force available to do that.

Now, I'm not saying this is true, I'm only saying that we don't know and it might be that this means the increased Mass in the rim isn't really doing anything because we aren't able to apply the same spin speed on the newer wider rimmed discs that we could on older narrower rimmed discs.

Chuck is there a reason you are not chiming in on just allowing 1 or 2 companies to have discs with wings wider than the rest?


There are already two remedies proposed which are phasing out the grandfathering in some time period or allowing each manufacturer one disc in the 2.31 to 2.7 range. Both seem reasonable options. The ads for the Double D indicate it can be "tuned" to change stabilities similar to the wording for the Epic. So one good design in that range for each manufacturer could be a sufficient compromise.



Allowing each "current" manufacturer a wide rim disc still doesn't address the future concerns of "future" disc manufacturers. Future disc manufacurers would not be allowed to produce a PDGA approved* wider rim disc to be on par with the existing manufacturers. If the rules are the rules then phase the discs out that don't meet standards.

Let me begin by thanking you for your time and reply Dave. I like your realistic approach to the issue per say! Basically, if I understand you correctly, you support the position that rules changes to limit disc "distance" aren't really necessary because the notion that this one factor is going to obsolete courses is too simplistic. I support that position.

I still only have one real issue and that is the one where I'm confusing you.

Going back to physics 101, when we increase Mass, it takes more force to get that Mass moving. Depending on how you view disc spin, you have to ask, if you put more weight in the rim, does it make it harder to get the disc spinning? i.e. is the wrist flick as described by Dave D. and documented by Blake T. effected by increased Mass. Obviously if the Mass is well below the force available in a wrist flick, no. But if the change is Mass now means that the force of a wrist flick is insufficient to achieve the same spin then you haven't gained anything. Your disc would spin longer if you got it up to the same spin speed, but you don't have the force available to do that.

Now, I'm not saying this is true, I'm only saying that we don't know and it might be that this means the increased Mass in the rim isn't really doing anything because we aren't able to apply the same spin speed on the newer wider rimmed discs that we could on older narrower rimmed discs.


I'm not exactly sure of the answer, but I feel the differences between launch spin speed of shorter or wider rims, is probably not that different.Even though the mass may be distributed differently from rim to flight plate by as much as 25%, it still contained within 21 or 22 cm.
Now if you added 10 cm of diameter to the disc and were able to keep the overall mass and weight of the disc the same I would be curious to see the effects when thrown.

Whatever spin you do get it up to though, (whether its enough for a stable flight pattern or not), I can assure you a more gyroscopic disc will hold it longer than, say a more centrifugal one.
This is where future wing shapes and surface technologies will eventually offset the over-stabilities that come in to play with the more gyroscopic discs of today.

N.A.S.A.,Boeing and I;m sure the military have been doing testing and research on circular displacemnt for years.
I once read an article about an unmanned aircraft that used gyroscopes that created jet propulsion that fueled the craft.
That info is a bit dicey for me at the moment, but I may research it to see if I can find any of the information again. Most of this type of information that has been discovered is top secret and classified.

there are those who are advocating the restriction of "gyroscopic" (rim-weighted) configurations. they seem to make the argument that distance due to gyroscopic forces is bad compared to distance derived from centrifugal forces or wing-generated lift. they also confuse gyroscopic with "projectile" or "ballistic" trajectories, and imply that gyroscopic discs necessarily move ballistically.

this is terrible science - wrong at best and misleading at worst. here's why:

1. trajectory physics can be used to calculate the range of a projected object. the primary inputs are launch velocity and launch angle. range (R) is calc'd as (V₀²sin2Θ ) / g. (newton figured that out in the late 17th century). if trajectory physics was all that mattered, range would max out at 434 feet for a disc thrown at 80 miles/hour at 45 degrees. we all know that this is not the maximum distance, therefore we can infer the presence of some other force(s). the fact that maximum distance is substantially different from that predicted by projectile/ballistic physics further means that whatever additional forces are present make a significant contribution to distance.

2. change Θ to something flatter, say 15°, and the maximum range drops to less than 220 feet! yet shots released at less than 15° make up a huge percentage of our shots, and many, many, many go farther than the maximum range attributable to ballistic forces. an even more dramatic proof that referring to trajectory physics alone represents a woefully incomplete analysis is what happens with a horizontal launch. maximum range when releasing at 0°, 2M height and at 36m/sec (80mph) is an anemic 23 feet!

3. the wing shape matters! this should not be news. as soon as you start sculpting a shape, you move beyond ballistic physics. lift generated by the wing augments the arm-imparted velocity. spin speed contributes to lift (amount and duration) and stability, which also impacts range. wing shape is a very significant part of the distance puzzle by cancelling effects of gravity and carrying the disc farther.

there is also a new movement that would eliminate hyper-centrifugal discs such as the 10M Brick. the argument is that the extreme center-weighting leaves the disc solely at the mercy of ballistic physics. again, this is not true. just as with wide rimmed discs, wing shape and spin combine to overshadow the ballistic forces.

it is as if those who want us to restrict rim width (gyroscopics) and plate thickness (centrifugals) got off the physics bus in 1687 with Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and completely missed the advent of aerodynamics.

that it is so easily demonstrated that wing shape and generation of lift are the real drivers to distance in our sport means that the concerns over rim width and plate thickness are misplaced. applying those variables in conjunction with wing shape is far more consistant with science and the sport's legacy. creating technical standards that severely shorten the distance between the gyroscopic and centrifugal ends of the spectrum is effectively declaring vast territories of flight design off-limits. to me, these restrictions amount to clipping a birds wings and putting him in a cage.

whats worse, it wont work to achieve the desired objectives of fairness and anti-obsolescence. whatever the rim width or rim:center wieght ratios mandated by specs, a wing shape will come along that creates the lift required to go farther.

another point: when rim width increases beyond a certain point, the gyroscopic effect begins to decrease - weight moves back to the center as the rim widens. the perceived problem of rim width actually diminishes with increasing rim widths! this implies less need for width limits... and if current configurations already achieve maximum gyroscopic effect, we may gain more, and protect the sport better, by removing the width limit entirely.

Pat,

I want to read through this and think about it but I need a definition of gyroscopic forces as you're thinking about them. When I think of gyroscopic forces I immediately move to precession. My understanding of that is that it contributes to stability but not distance. So, can you tell me how gyroscopic forces contribute to distance.

BTW - flight dynamics, vs. glide dynamics seem different. While the gist of what you are saying comes through as flight mechanics due to the wing, it seems as if you are leaving out the glide function of the disc the ability of the disc to catch air under the rim or in the hollow part of the disc and ride that lift.


Thanks in advance.

Lyle

another point: when rim width increases beyond a certain point, the gyroscopic effect begins to decrease - weight moves back to the center as the rim widens. the perceived problem of rim width actually diminishes with increasing rim widths! this implies less need for width limits... and if current configurations already achieve maximum gyroscopic effect, we may gain more, and protect the sport better, by removing the width limit entirely.



BTW - I was wondering when someone would add this tidbit. Yes folks, the notion that were actually adding weight onto the rim of the disc and thus gaining distance is belied by this observation. You can't just separate the wing from the plate. The real experiment is to start in the middle and cut a 3 mm circle, then 3mm rings going out. Then weigh each one and see what the real weight distribution over the width of the disc is...


You might actually find that the center of weight distribution is closer to the middle on a destroyer than on say a T-Bird. :o

lyle, you are correct, those forces under the plate are important also. precession is a gyroscopic force. the other one that comes into play in this discussion is the longer spin that happens when the weight is in the rim. i am not up on that part of the physics so i will likely butcher it if i try to explain. bottom line is rim-weighted discs can spin longer (angular momentum?)

the flight dynamics from newtonian motion formulas completely disregard glide dynamics, you are absolutely correct. that is at the heart of my post. i spoke mostly about the wing shpae, because that is a big lift generator (or can be anywayz). you are also correct that stuff happens due to the air under the plate.

So, I've thought a little and here are some things to consider:

I suspect the argument being made is that you can combine ballistic forces with flight forces. If we could do the math one might say something like:

A disc should only rely 10% on ballistic forces vs. flight forces. Unfortunately determining these forces on a disc is pretty tough (O.K. I don't really know but if it was easy some [since when has the schm word been off limits?] would be offering such calcs by now.)

The notion that "increased spin" = distance does have merit. If spin is required (and we know it is) for a disc to have flight dynamics, it only stands to reason that adequate spin is required for flight. I'm not sure that the argument being made is that more weight in the rim increases distance due to ballistics (I think that's what you're saying Pat) rather I think the argument is that the extra weight results in extended spin characteristics thus allowing the flight dynamics to operate longer.

The problem is that no one has defined adequate spin in terms of flight dynamics. Furthermore, no one has defined the relationship between ballistics (the forward velocity of the disc) and the spin required for flight dynamics (I'm confident they're related but doggoned if I can define that relationship).

If indeed, we are assuming that increasing spin increases flight dynamics, then, as you've pointed out, we need to show that we've actually accomplished that with the wider rimmed discs. Of course we haven't (that is shown we've accomplished more spin) and furthermore, we can't even determine that the reason these disc "fly further" is due to increased spin or some other wing or flight plate characteristic.

To put it another way, we're assuming a lot without really knowing. Well, if the goal is to limit flight length, wouldn't it be good to know all the factors that contribute to flight length before trying to regulate them? Even better wouldn't an informed discussion on whether flight length limitation is beneficial be a good idea (protection of the integrity of the sport notwithstanding)?

Pat can well tell you that I'm a strong advocate of trust in the Board and Committees in acting on our behalf. However, he will also remind you that I believe that includes oversight on their actions and action if those actions seem misplaced.

I'm not getting a clear picture that in this we've thought enough. On the other hand, if I recall, the Board is thinking of moving this limitation to 3cm and if that is true, I think the point is moot. Nonetheless, enacting the rule does seem a waste of paper. If the rule is to stand at 2.3 cm thus creating an inequality between access to wider rims between manufacturers, then we should show that this rule actually accomplishes something.

I just read the tech standards and it looks like they settled in on 2.6cm for the wing length.

There is some wording I find odd and a few tech standards that changed that I do not remember any discussion on.

I am going to re-read it tomorrow 1st thing in the morning when my brain is fresh.

2.6cm... well less than 1 1/16 inch... why not just decide on 2.5cm or an even inch? :P

Because two approved discs were already at 2.6 besides the Epic.

1" = 2.56cm

Because two approved discs were already at 2.6 besides the Epic.

I did not realize this. Which ones are they?

Both are Quest discs. Look them up here: www.pdga.com/discs.php (http://www.pdga.com/discs.php)

chuck who job is it to update the list?

we have 4 discs not on the list.

I would also like to get our logo changed to the one we are using now, how can I go about getting these to things done.

chuck who job is it to update the list?

we have 4 discs not on the list.

I would also like to get our logo changed to the one we are using now, how can I go about getting these to things done.




Yeah those are pretty old. I have never even seen that Discraft one before.

jeff homburg updates the list.

Homburg updates the file and sends it to the PDGA office for them to update the website. Contact Gentry for logo changes.

1" = 2.56cm



I was incorrect: :o

1" = 2.54cm

1" = 2.56cm



I was incorrect: :o

1" = 2.54cm



I guess it depends on how cold it is.

1" = 2.56cm



I was incorrect: :o

1" = 2.54cm



I guess it depends on how cold it is.

how so?

Rulers made of different materials would shrink in cold weather at different rates.

A granite measure of an inch shouldn't shrink as fast as a rubber metric ruler so comparing the two may show 2.56 as the correct comparison value....

they make single rulers with both metric and imperial. besides, theres always http://www.digitaldutch.com/unitconverter/ :)