Hi, we have 9 baskets all Lightning DB-5s. As you may know the basket only has one set of heavier chains that are setup on the top outside of the basket too the bottom ring.

We are wanting to upgrade these baskets with an extra set of chains on the inside. Can anyone provide any information on this or has anyone taken on this task?

Please feel free to private message me or post here with any information, it would be great appreciated. Thanks!

http://discussion.pdga.com/msgboard/show...;o=&fpart=1 (http://discussion.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=374271&page=14&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

instep but still the same general process

Just get some S hooks and hang inner chains straight down.

Just get some S hooks and hang inner chains straight down.



This is what we did with these baskets at one of our courses. We did also buy the 8" rings that come with the Mach V baskets from DGA to attach the chains to at the bottom. Really helped these baskets out a lot.

This is what we did with these baskets at one of our courses. We did also buy the 8" rings that come with the Mach V baskets from DGA to attach the chains to at the bottom. Really helped these baskets out a lot.

Do you have any pictures anywhere?

Do you have any pictures anywhere?
This is the best I have right now.
http://conchovalleydiscgolf.org/temp/photos/DB5 + extra chains.jpg

I emailed him some up close pics earlier Mikey.

Hi, we have 9 baskets all Lightning DB-5s. As you may know the basket only has one set of heavier chains that are setup on the top outside of the basket to the bottom ring.

We are wanting to upgrade these baskets with an extra set of chains on the inside. Can anyone provide any information on this or has anyone taken on this task?

Please feel free to private message me or post here with any information, it would be great appreciated. Thanks!
*
*
Skotty B,

If you want the best inside chain configuration available we can hook you up.
We may even be able to work in a fundraiser disc that you could sell to raise the money for the improvement to the course.

We (Gateway) have a bunch of hot dipped galvanized chain already cut, S hooks and rings ( 4 ") that you could buy for the inner chains.
We changed our lengths a bit so we have a whole course worth of inside chain already cut.

You would basically be creating the Titan/Alan Pier type inner chains where theres 2 sets each alternating lengths that would cover the entire inside are of the basket.
Plus the chain we use on the inside is heavier the the 2 OTT straight liberty outside chain which makes it awesome for stopping the discs from hitting the pole and bouncing out or from cutting through.
Its also MUCH better to have your chain to smaller rings like the 4" so the chain cannot spread apart as wide.

basically your chain configuration would look like this:
http://www.gdstour.com/gateway_titan_portable_disc_golf_basket.php

Feel free to give me a call on my cell 314 303 1488 if this offer interests you and we can discuss costs.,,,David

Of course, adding inner chains to a PDGA Approved basket or for that matter any type of modification not submitted for approval as an option on a target makes it "unapproved" unless later submitted for testing and receiving approval.

Of course, adding inner chains to a PDGA Approved basket or for that matter any type of modification not submitted for approval as an option on a target makes it "unapproved" unless later submitted for testing and receiving approval.

So if you bought single chain DISCatchers, and added the second set of chains yourself....they are now unapproved?

Manufacturer has basket approved with both types - simply adding Innova chains to Mach I or modifying any basket with other manufacturers parts is what is NOT approved.

Of course, adding inner chains to a PDGA Approved basket or for that matter any type of modification not submitted for approval as an option on a target makes it "unapproved" unless later submitted for testing and receiving approval.

Chuck I just don't understand your motivation here.
Why would you try and scare people out of trying to improve their courses?

There are hundred of events each year played on baskets that would not be "pdga approved" for one reason or another,,, yet nothing has ever been done and I doubt anything ever will.

PDGA events are played with temp baskets, people have been adding inside chains to mach 1 and 2's for years and there are homemade baskets all over this country where PDGA sanctioned events are run.
These events with the so called "unapproved baskets" get sanctioned, players ratings, points and earnings get recorded and nothing ever gets said.

So I have to ask what are you trying to accomplish here by scaring people?

Of course, adding inner chains to a PDGA Approved basket or for that matter any type of modification not submitted for approval as an option on a target makes it "unapproved" unless later submitted for testing and receiving approval.

I know Gateway can sometimes do some crazy things... I know that Gateway is the red headed step child of disc golf. I know that Gateway and the PDGA have had issues in the past. I know that some of this Gateway has brought on its self due to disagreements (Real or imagined) with the PDGA.

Chuck,

Why are you always negative about anything Gateway? In the past I have seen people complain that Gateway is treated differently than the other manufacturers, And I have always defended the PDGA and blamed the actions of Gateway..

How about instead of being a negative influence to the 3rd largest disc manufacture in the sport you lend them a hand and you represent the PDGA with some respect? I have never meet you personally. I do know what you do and have done for disc golf and have mad respect for you. I thank you for everything you do to improve the professionalism of disc golf.

If you have some beef with Gateway take it behind closed doors. Showing your butt in public is doing nothing for disc golf and makes you look like a spoiled child. I bet if you had a problem with any other disc golf company you would be respectful and have much more couth in your actions.

I am a paying PDGA member... I am not a sponsored Gateway player.. I do not work for Gateway.. I just get tired of seeing you bash / hate on them. If you have a problem simply send a private PM or give Dave a call and you all work it out.

</rant>

Regards
-Chris Adams

Hey Chris,

My comments regarding Gateway are triggered from my position as a member and de facto spokesperson online for the PDGA Tech Standards Committee. I have no ongoing bias for or against any manufacturer. McCormack and I go way back and it's never personal on my part, just Gateway business practices that have been out of line or perhaps ill-advised since I joined the TSC three years ago. I've probably only commented on a 1/3 of what I could have regarding some Gateway issues. As far as lending a hand, Dave knows at least one thing we did that bailed him out of one problem. But that was behind closed doors as you suggest I should do.

My comments about adding the inner chains was simply pointing out a lurking issue that's been there for years regarding after market target modifications. It had nothing to do specifically with Gateway chains, but any set of inner chains not approved for addition to a specific basket model. While it would seem like adding inner chains to a target that didn't have them would be OK, the fact is that it's a modification not allowed by the specs.

Maybe this should be allowed. I've asked the TSC members about it. They seem to think that only inner chain sets made by the target manufacturer for that model that have been measured and approved should be allowed. Otherwise, you don't have relatively consistent targets for sanctioned play.

Granted, the monitoring of targets used for sanctioned events has lagged even farther behind testing discs for such simple things as over weight compliance. But target compliance is now moving forward with the new specification categories - Championship, Standard and Basic and matching them with tier sanctioning: http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/TourStandards.pdf (see page 3)
Baby steps so far but in the right direction long term.

I don't see anything in the rules, tour standards, competition manual, or technical specs for manufacturers that has anything to say about what can or cannot be done by course designers/TDs to approved targets that are used in PDGA events. Where is the no modification clause? Players may not make post-production modification of disc, but it says nothing like that for targets.

The Tour Standards and Rules say that targets must be Approved (as submitted) and discs must be Approved (as submitted), respectively. The clause in the Rules that says the disc can't be modified isn't really necessary and just clarifies what can make a disc "unapproved." An Approved target physically modified would likewise not be approved by default without delineating the specific ways that changing it would remove its approved status.

With that logic, adding a custom number plate on top of a target would no longer make it approved.

(I've reread this sentence and cannot figure out what you are trying to say:"An Approved target physically modified would likewise not be approved by default without delineating the specific ways that changing it would remove its approved status.")

So really the only way to "legally" upgrade your baskets from single to double chains is to order the chian from the actual company the basket came from and get precut chain only from them? !

So really the only way to "legally" upgrade your baskets from single to double chains is to order the chian from the actual company the basket came from and get precut chain only from them? !

If you are in Chicago, you'll also need to use union labor to install them.

So really the only way to "legally" upgrade your baskets from single to double chains is to order the chian from the actual company the basket came from and get precut chain only from them? !
That's the way the specs are written. You wouldn't hold tournaments in other sports where the size of the target hole (golf, basketball), shape or size of the field (football, soccer, tennis) could be changed by the host. Having Approved targets that at least remain consistent in their model design is the way we've gone in this sport for the moment. Maybe there will be some standard unpatented target design that any manufacturer can make their own way in the future like a basketball hoop but that's quite a ways off, if ever.

First of all I do not feel like Chuck's posts have been negative towards me or Gateway, though I can see how it may be coming across this way to those who don't know Chuck that well.

I know Chuck fairly well and see him as "Chuck the mathematician who needs it all to add up by the numbers" and I know he takes his roles with the pdga seriously.
For what he is paid ( which I think is just about ZERO) and all the criticism he has to take,,, I think he's doing a **** good job.

Chuck does a lot of good work for the pdga and is helping shape of the word professional in the pdga and this will require a significant amount of change in the future.
Like any change that is needed, it usually comes with lots of resistance.


I'm all for as much standardization as possible, but hopefully it will not tie the hands of improving existing courses.
At this point I'd like to see the long term plan that validates him scaring people out of improving their courses today.

I think Chucks post about un-approving existing baskets if the chains are modified was made with good intentions but certainly concerns me.
Chuck and I have had many MANY conversations over the years, but this topic has never been one of them.

I doubt the pdga is going to do much to stop the money generating machine of sanctioned events. So the thought process of "not sanctioning events" in the future where baskets have been modified (without buying directly from the original manufacture) is huge stretch of the imagination.

If there was a big plan to standardize courses (not just the baskets) for sanctioning events I could see chucks rationale,,,,but I'm having hard time believing the pdga is going to tell TD's they cannot run a sanctioned event because they added inside chains to their baskets.



If someone has a mach 1 and they want to put a Titan pro-24 or Mach III Chain configuration on them to improve them This seems like it should be ok.





Lets talk a bit about post production modifications to sports equipment for other "Professional" sports.

Baseball players add oil to gloves, rub the heck out of the balls and add pine tar to bats.
some teams hose down the infield when they have a sinkerball pitcher or dry it up when the other teams has one.

Football players tape the heck out of everything they wear, kickers squeeze the balls and push in on the ends.

Hockey players tape their sticks, add or remove the face shield from helmets and change the sharpness of the blades.

Golfers change the grips on their clubs, change shafts and even cut down shaft lengths.

I'm sure theres more,,,!!!!

Basketball is one sport where not much ever gets changed, but if the net wears out I'm fairly certain they don't have to go back to the company they bought the hoop from.

Maybe the PDGA should sell "Approved modification kits" as a way to help standardize the baskets for future sanctioned events.

I second what Dave said about Chuck.

I would like to add one thing - from a quick reading of the Tour Specs and Tech Specs docs, it appears that these targets as described would be perfectly fine for B and C tier events.

Lets talk a bit about post production modifications to sports equipment for other "Professional" sports.
Baseball players add oil to gloves, rub the heck out of the balls and add pine tar to bats.
some teams hose down the infield when they have a sinkerball pitcher or dry it up when the other teams has one.
Football players tape the heck out of everything they wear, kickers squeeze the balls and push in on the ends.
Hockey players tape their sticks, add or remove the face shield from helmets and change the sharpness of the blades.
Golfers change the grips on their clubs, change shafts and even cut down shaft lengths.
These are primarily the players' equipment not the equipment used on the field. Home plate shape, size or position isn't changed, goal posts are standard width and height, hockey goals the same size opening and mounting, the golf hole has a standard size and depth.

hockey goals the same size opening and mounting, .

The goals maybe the same size in hockey, but the rinks are not!

The goals maybe the same size in hockey, but the rinks are not!
And our courses are not all the same length.

These are primarily the players' equipment not the equipment used on the field. Home plate shape, size or position isn't changed, goal posts are standard width and height, hockey goals the same size opening and mounting, the golf hole has a standard size and depth.

While the NHL may specify exactly how the net is to be constructed, it doesn't say that you can only get the netting from the original goal manufacturer. If it meets the specs, it's ok. The same should be true for disc golf targets.

While the NHL may specify exactly how the net is to be constructed, it doesn't say that you can only get the netting from the original goal manufacturer. If it meets the specs, it's ok. The same should be true for disc golf targets.
If we change our rules such that "holing out" occurs simply when the disc passes thru the outer chains or strikes the inner chains, then I would agree.

If we change our rules such that "holing out" occurs simply when the disc passes thru the outer chains or strikes the inner chains, then I would agree.

Hopefully this is NOT one of the new proposed rule changes :(

I have heard a rumor that they ( whoever they is) are thinking about making jump putting illegal???
I also heard they ( whoever they is) also want to make you stand still when throwing fairway shots.

Chuck?? any comment?

Hopefully this is NOT one of the new proposed rule changes :(

I have heard a rumor that they ( whoever they is) are thinking about making jump putting illegal???
I also heard they ( whoever they is) also want to make you stand still when throwing fairway shots.

Chuck?? any comment?

I have heard the same thing.

I have heard a rumor that they ( whoever they is) are thinking about making jump putting illegal???
I also heard they ( whoever they is) also want to make you stand still when throwing fairway shots.
The Rules Committee has considered both of these things and other possibilities in their deliberations on dealing with the putt jump problem. But they've also determined these possible "solutions" also have their own problems as much as the current problem attempting to be fixed. So they're still deliberating. If no option or new idea looks better, it sounds like their stance will be to not change the current rule regarding putt jumps or any other rules area they are looking at until a better idea surfaces for a future update. We'll find out in a month or so on this and several other rules items.

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>Originally Posted by cgkdisc http://www.pdga.com/discussion/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=1432641#post1432641)
If we change our rules such that "holing out" occurs simply when the disc passes thru the outer chains or strikes the inner chains, then I would agree.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Hopefully this is NOT one of the new proposed rule changes :(

Not a chance. I was just pointing this out in relation to how goals in soccer and hockey occur instantly once you cross the line and the net is essentially irrelevant in the event it flexes the ball or puck back out across the line.

The chains are just as irrelevant as a disc is holed out when it lands in the basket. The fact that it is also considered holed out is when hanging in the chains is only a byproduct of a the nature of the deflection device.

Not at all. The chains directly affect whether a disc will be holed out or slip out the back in most putts. The equivalent would be if crossing certain segments of the goal line didn't count sometimes or the goal line significantly varied in thickness over its length.

Chuck,

This may be a dead thread so I don't know if you will see it or not. But, just in case, here goes...

I was pointed at this thread because we are contemplating this exact thing, adding inner chains to DB-5 baskets.

If I were to order one set of "approved" inner chains from the manufacturer and then make 20 technically identical sets, we have 21 holes btw, why would this be illegal?

In reality, this would never be noticed and has an infintely smaller chance of being punished, but we would still like to do things by the book.

It would be just as illegal as "factoring" (deliberately shaving height from the bottom rim) an approved disc in some manner. I wouldn't worry about it too much since at this point post targets are still legal for C-tiers, for example. This isn't intended to give you a free pass by any means, just that for lower level events it will likely never be seen as a problem.

Chuck,

Was your last post in response to my question?

How would making exact replicas of approved chain inserts be similar to deliberately carving the rim of a disc?

The Lightining has no target model approved with inner chains or their own approved chain insert that can be added. So your question is moot in this case. If you knocked off the inner chain set that DGA has approved for upgrading their Mach basket, it would not be appropriate even if your version was identical. Might never be noticed but it's still not appropriate.

Regarding factoring the disc, the implication is that the player is doing something to improve the disc in the same way you are planning to add chains to improve the DB-5 targets. While improving targets or discs seems like it's a good thing, corking bats or putting grease on a baseball can improve their performance also. The problem in both sports is that the improvement isn't available to all players until it's publicly made available to everyone either by rule or commercial production in sufficient quantities.

what?
if you can make your baskets catch better, by all means do it. in ball golf, if your ball drops in the hole, it's not bouncing out. our targets are more ambiguous (dead center putt bouncing out occasionally) and therefore should be able to be improved upon at will within the size specs. At least as far as this issues goes, the "rules" that chuck is advocating are silly. waste of time here.

our targets are more ambiguous (dead center putt bouncing out occasionally) and therefore should be able to be improved upon at will within the size specs.
It's not so much a restriction from making better targets. It's about making sure any enhancements are commerically available as a standard item with consistent and published specs. That's a key reason the equipment approval process is there in addition to providing max/min specs within which enhancements can be created.

There is a major difference between refactored discs and modified targets. Refactored discs can give an advantage to a single player. Modified targets affect all players equally.

But wouldn't you agree that a basket that either caught much worse or much better than currently approved targets would potentially affect the ratings of players in sanctioned events on that course more than a factored disc improvement for one player?

No. It's affect on ratings should be statistically a non-issue.

For the group on average, the resulting average rating for the pool of players in each round will be the same. But there will be individuals who putt better, worse or the same. So the ratings of many more individuals will be influenced. It's similar to what would happen if you require only Super Class discs be used. The overall ratings output for the layout stay the same but individual performances will be affected.

I think basket modifications are much more wide spread than the PDGA realizes. A lot of clubs do these to improve their baskets.

We had a situation in Tulsa where several courses of baskets we purchased from Innova developed rusty chains. Innova did the right thing and provided new chains at no cost and even threw in some disc to reward the workers who came out to replace them.

We have a course where we purchased DB-5's. We added the "rusty" Innova chains to the the interior of the baskets to make them double chained. It really worked out great because it didn't seem right to just pitch the old chains.

In my humble opinion, the PDGA needs to develop a process and a form where clubs can demonstrate the parts used, the process and provide detailed pictures of the baskets so they can be reviewed and approved.

I am totally understanding of the need for consistency however with multiple approved basket manufacturers and models there is obviously some flexibility. The PDGA has not said this is exactly how a basket must look and or be constructed.

It isn't feasable to pull a basket and send it to the PDGA, nor would I think they want hundreds of baskets showing up for inspection that they then would have to return.

Just an idea...

If the PDGA were to say that it was okay for anyone other than the manufacturer to modify an approved target by adding chains or maybe a wider basket made by another manufacturer, that would not be respecting the design of the manufacturer who paid to have their target PDGA approved. Not sure how the PDGA could officially state this policy. One option at some point might be to create specs for a PDGA target design that all manufacturers could duplicate like equipment in other sports like a basketball hoop or soccer goal. But what design would that be?

What has happened to Steve Howle ?

Due to some family issues Steve has stopped operations for the time being. We're hoping he'll be back soon!

It's about a month now ?