Just wanted to state that I think the Whitler should be included in the list of super class discs. Afterall, the difference between it and the 40 mold (a staple of the old world of disc golf) is pretty much the polymer alone. I am not only making this suggestion for the obvious benefits to me as the manufacturer, but also to echo feedback from Whitler throwers interested in s-class events (some of whom use this board).

Just wanted to state that I think the Whitler should be included in the list of super class discs. Afterall, the difference between it and the 40 mold (a staple of the old world of disc golf) is pretty much the polymer alone. I am not only making this suggestion for the obvious benefits to me as the manufacturer, but also to echo feedback from Whitler throwers interested in s-class events (some of whom use this board).




They aren't allowing 40-Mold either. The question is why?


I agree with you BTW.

i didn't see the jaguar in the list also. is it because the rim isn't deep as a zephyr?

The rim is to sharp, the proposed Super Class specifications are:
Minimum 23.7 cm diameter (30 cm max)
Rim width no greater than 0.8 cm
Rim configuration at least , minimum 77
Inner rim depth between 6.5-12% of the outside diameter.

The rim is too golf-like and tht is also why the Condor isn't included.

does the whittler not meet the specs?

The Whitler's diameter is too small for the current PROPOSED specs. Those proposed specs have a lower limit of 23.7cm, whereas the Whittler is 22.6cm and the Wham-o 40-mold is 23.5. The logic for the diameter spec seems to be two-fold:

1) Desire to have an upper weight limit of 200g for all discs. If a disc is too small to weigh 200g @ 8.3g/cm, then it isn't included.

2) Concern that allowing smaller diameter discs to be included will allow for the design of a "division-killing disc" that will make the Ultimate-size discs non-competitive.

3) The need to "draw a line in the sand" somewhere, in order to have a consistent standard.


My thoughts about this logic:

1x) Presumeably, needing to weigh a 40-mold to make sure it doesn't weigh more than 195.1g or that a Whittler doesn't weigh more than 187.6g is a burden for TD's. Of course, that begs the question of why it isn't a burden to require a TD to weigh an Ultrastar to make sure it doesn't weigh 220g?

2x) Interestingly, there is no concern that manufacturers will design a larger diameter "killer disc" - in fact, the architect of the Super Class spec (Chuck Kennedy) has already mentioned that he has asked a disc manufacturer if they could design a large diameter disc that makes throwing a power forehand easier. I guess it's a problem that those darn Ulty discs are so deep-rimmed and hard to throw.

3) Once you draw a line in the sand it *is possible* to smooth over the line and re-draw it somewhere else, if it makes sense to do so.

Having played disc golf back when catch discs were the only discs we had, I have a hard time seeing why slightly smaller blunt-rimmed discs that are easier for kids, females and males with smaller hands to throw kills the specification. I think there is far less difference between an Ultrstar and a Whittler than there is between an Ultrastar and a contrived "easier to throw forehand disc."

There is one other thing about diameter and that's the ease of putting with smaller diameter discs. At least at the pro level, putting is too easy relative to golf. This has been a major drawback for properly setting par since we really don't have the convenient "two putts on the green" like ball golf. Ours is more like 1.5 shots on the green.

Decreasing the size of the basket has been suggested by some as a solution to increasing putting difficulty. That's impractical with our installed base of baskets. However, by increasing the disc diameter for Super Class, and yet still allowing a heavier weight limit to compress the chains (compared to vintage weights), we should have a more challenging putting environment that's still fair but better balanced with other aspects of the game.

Who says Disc Golf has to be like Golf?
The number of putts on a green is relative to the defined size of a green as much, if not more, than it is relative to the size of the basket. If you want to reinforce 2 putts as par for a green, then define the green as 20 meters in diameter instead of 10 meters!
For the life of me, I can't understand the obsession with trying to make disc golf closely conform with golf (most notably by the PDGA and it's associates). Perhaps trying to fit the square peg in the round hole is what slows the progress of our unique sport more than anything.

The Whitler's diameter is too small for the current PROPOSED specs. Those proposed specs have a lower limit of 23.7cm, whereas the Whittler is 22.6cm and the Wham-o 40-mold is 23.5. The logic for the diameter spec seems to be two-fold:

1) Desire to have an upper weight limit of 200g for all discs. If a disc is too small to weigh 200g @ 8.3g/cm, then it isn't included.

2) Concern that allowing smaller diameter discs to be included will allow for the design of a "division-killing disc" that will make the Ultimate-size discs non-competitive.

3) The need to "draw a line in the sand" somewhere, in order to have a consistent standard.


My thoughts about this logic:

1x) Presumeably, needing to weigh a 40-mold to make sure it doesn't weigh more than 195.1g or that a Whittler doesn't weigh more than 187.6g is a burden for TD's. Of course, that begs the question of why it isn't a burden to require a TD to weigh an Ultrastar to make sure it doesn't weigh 220g?

2x) Interestingly, there is no concern that manufacturers will design a larger diameter "killer disc" - in fact, the architect of the Super Class spec (Chuck Kennedy) has already mentioned that he has asked a disc manufacturer if they could design a large diameter disc that makes throwing a power forehand easier. I guess it's a problem that those darn Ulty discs are so deep-rimmed and hard to throw.

3) Once you draw a line in the sand it *is possible* to smooth over the line and re-draw it somewhere else, if it makes sense to do so.

Having played disc golf back when catch discs were the only discs we had, I have a hard time seeing why slightly smaller blunt-rimmed discs that are easier for kids, females and males with smaller hands to throw kills the specification. I think there is far less difference between an Ultrstar and a Whittler than there is between an Ultrastar and a contrived "easier to throw forehand disc."



You've hit the nail on the head here. The line clearly needs to be re-drawn. To do so is simply part of a natural process in developing something new and shouldn't be seen as something lost by the developers of this idea.

at least some of the discs mentioned earlier should be grandfathered in. if everyone feels the whittler or the 40 mold is easier to putt with, then that's what they can use. I agree with chuck though that we will not change basket size. i do not feel like putting should be harder. there are a lot of other ways to make a par 3 more difficult.

The SC group already considered grandfathering a few discs in the early stage of this development and soon rejected it on the grounds of favoring specific manufacturers. Manufacturers without discs that could get grandfathered objected as you might expect. So no grandfathering would be considered.

SuperClass Specs Poll is up!

I love the bias in the poll writing...

Should the spec be changed to allow X?
_ Yes
_ No, all the specs are perfect in every possible form and I will name my next child Chuck Kennedy because everything about these specs is so perfect.
_ I don't give a rat's patoot...

Can we have a less inherently biased poll?

I love the bias in the poll writing...

Should the spec be changed to allow X?
_ Yes
_ No, all the specs are perfect in every possible form and I will name my next child Chuck Kennedy because everything about these specs is so perfect.
_ I don't give a rat's patoot...

Can we have a less inherently biased poll?



agreed

i'm definatly glad im not 1 of the decision makers here.
it is going to be impossible to please all of the people who are this assosiation.
thanks to all who take on the task of developing something new, without these people we wouldnt have electric lights some people still want to live by candles.
not saying that th 40 mold or whitler should or shouldnt be included, but lets let this this thing grow as it can, just as a kid grows there will be some bumps and bruses but idont think anyone will die during the growth due to the growth process. :eek: :eek: :eek:

thanks to all who take on the task of developing something new, without these people we wouldnt have electric lights some people still want to live by candles.




Agreed. Some people make genuine contributions while others contribute by whining and complaining that 'they're doing it wrong'.


[..] just as a kid grows there will be some bumps and bruses



And, even though most members are adult age, just like with a kid there will be temper tantrums, manipulation, selfishness and ingratitude.

thanks to all who take on the task of developing something new, without these people we wouldnt have electric lights some people still want to live by candles.




Agreed. Some people make genuine contributions while others contribute by whining and complaining that 'they're doing it wrong'.


[..] just as a kid grows there will be some bumps and bruses



And, even though most members are adult age, just like with a kid there will be temper tantrums, manipulation, selfishness and ingratitude.



Yikes, haven't you guys ever heard of free speech? I'm guessing you'd be happier if we were still a colony of Britain? If an idea is truly of value it should be able to stand up against debate and discussion. I'm generally in support of the Super Class idea (which you would have known had you read some of the discussion in the "Ratings and Skill-based Competition" area of the MB), however, I think the minimum diameter specification should be smaller.

I'm not going to jump in line just because Chuck rolls out an idea. I like a lot of the things that Chuck does, but I have a point of disagreement with him on this one. And I must admit, I would've probably shut up by now if he would have once during this process made a comment to the effect that he would consider ANY input on this topic. Unfortunately, in this case his position has seemed to be that once he presents something to the membership there should be no questions asked. Maybe that comes from years of being needled and questioned by others about ratings and SSA and the like, but oh well, that comes with the territiory (and the consultant's check).

Oh, and as long as I keep volunteering my time, getting courses installed, running disc golf clinics for kids, running tournaments and raising funds for charity through disc golf, I think I've earned the right to disagree and complain where I see fit. I don't disagree just for the sake of disagreement, just as I don't salute for every flag that goes up the flagpole.

Laying out course 4 at Lemon Lake yesterday with next summers Super Class tournament in mind...View video of the park at the web site below...

Bart Zandstra

www.DiscGolfFlyMart.com (http://www.DiscGolfFlyMart.com)

Congrats! I love the new concept. This feels very appropriate for all the old school "short" courses that are generally par 3's or birdie chances on every hole for most pros. Great for promoting new players to the sport and getting those Ultimate girls out to the course.

It's perfect in Sarasota, where we have two fairly short courses.

I'll be announcing the innagural Sarasota PDGA Super Class event coming this February. I belive it will be the first sanctioned Super Class event in Florida. Looking at Saturday Feb 21 or Feb 28, one-day (two rounds) C-tier at Lakeview Park (short pads)... fundraiser for Efest Florida.
www.efest.us (http://www.efest.us)

This has the potential to become a statewide tour.... Sunshine State Super Class Tour (TM).

I'm also considering shifting a current PDGA event series, the Sky Way Challenge, into Super Class events.

Thanks for the efforts Chuck & gang, and I'm looking forward to the finalized list of approved discs.

Peace,
Bmoore

Yes, superclass is a great idea in terms of getting new or ultimate players on the course as well as making short par three's more challenging. However, this thread was posted to discuss how the disc standards of superclass are unnecessarily exclusive.
If these standards actually reflected the stated reasons for superclass, then the Zephyr, which is widely accepted as significantly faster (likely the result of it's stepped wing) than both the unapproved smaller diameter discs such as the Whitler and approved discs such as the Ultrastar, should actually be excluded from SC based on it's golf disc-like qualities and thus advantage.
In other words, the current standards make no sense given the purpose of the class based on the discs that are approved and not approved.
Please continue giving your feedback on the issue through the poll, as the standards are not yet final!

Can I send in the little plastic thing my mom puts here plants on? I was tossing it yesterday almost as far as an Ultrastar and they have similar diameter but the wing may be too large. :p

Ok Matt... since you want to keep your incredibly biased poll...

No the Whitler shouldn't be allowed. Not at all. Sure it flies like a lid, and is a lid, but it is so small in diameter that it putts too well.

If you solved the problems I have with the Whitler, it would be a category killer vs. the bigger diameter discs. It is a full centimeter smaller than even the smallest current discs under the standard...

Now the problems I found:

I've been a golfer for 11 years and an ultimate player for 17 years.

I heard all these great things about your disc and I bought one... Tried it for a dozen rounds looking for the disc to take the 199 Zephyr out of my bag for all of those big looping touch flicks to get out of trouble within about 100' of the basket.

Despite being legal into the high 180s, the heaviest I could find was 166. Then, when I gripped a flick, my thumb would dent the flightplate in. Couldn't get a clean release on the 70 foot flick shot...

At the same time I bought a Sonic. It won a place in my bag. Not quite as understable as the Whitler, but will fly the touch routes and I can throw it hard if I really want to without the darn thing flexing all over the place in my hand.

Make the Whitler in a stiffer plastic and it would be a killer disc compared to discs that meet the superclass specs. On a whim, I bought an Aeoterra Rippa and though I have only thrown it up to about 60 feet in the backyard, it seems like what I had hoped for when I bought the Whitler earlier this summer.

A 187 gram Rippa is a far better putter than a 200 Zephyr. The differences I see with the Whitler and the Rippa are a slight height difference, 20 grams, slightly stiffer plastic, and some flight rings on the Rippa. Most of these you could do to a Whitler without changing the mold.

I understand that you are upset that your touch disc doesn't fit specs that came out for this category after your disc did. There are, however a bunch of discs that miss the spec by much narrower margins. Will it even matter? Will Superclass even be a factor?

You are within your rights to complain. Just realize that part of making short courses difficult again with superclass is shortening drives. The other part is that with a superclass legal disc, I'd guess that most people have as good accuracy on a 20-25 foot putt as they do on a 30-35 footer with an aviar...

Here's grid that shows what disc diameters (vertical) and weights (horizontal) for blunt edged discs (rim config 75<=) that fit in the different overlapping disc classes that have been defined. And the max diameter allowed actually goes to 30 cm in the specs but no approved discs are over 28 cm.

The Super Class diameter limit splits the chart horizontally creating its own rectangular area at the bottom. Vintage discs are in the triangular section on the left over the whole diameter range. High Tech is what all PDGA approved discs are called and the only specs excluded for those discs is the gray upper right corner area. There's no rationale for smaller diameter discs to be included in Super Class, and if anything, the diameter limit could be increased. Having TDs run Vintage competitions would serve those who want to throw the discs in the upper left green triangle.

http://api.ning.com/files/tMKw7pCeYAQeiGc9m9a*ZhLJ6k-U3QnfKvhGturaWnvQJve4LhKhC6cVFSBbVVqJFJuCOoST3GXcx dY4rrnSvhRNUaTKqsgQ/BluntEdgeddiscs.gif

I can't wait until a group of ultimate players show up with their ultrastars; only to see the majority of disc golfers throwing cut rollers with Zephyr's and landing 100' longer on every "par 4-5" hole. At least they'll have played one Superclass tournament and as such have a meaningless rating!

I can't wait until a group of ultimate players show up with their ultrastars; only to see the majority of disc golfers throwing cut rollers with Zephyr's and landing 100' longer on every "par 4-5" hole. At least they'll have played one Superclass tournament and as such have a meaningless rating!



Man I think I am already going to complain about the discs with square rims as the will roll WAY farther.

I doubt we'll see many rollers (on purpose) in our winter Super Class league starting Sunday. Ultimate players may not throw rollers anyway since it's not yet allowed as a throw in their game.

I doubt we'll see many rollers (on purpose) in our winter Super Class league starting Sunday. Ultimate players may not throw rollers anyway since it's not yet allowed as a throw in their game.



So how does that encourage ultimate players to keep playing this format (granted they try it in the first place)? That's like me playing an NT with mids and putters...uh, no thanks. If one of the primary goals is to reach out to ultimate players, then I see this format as being flawed from the get go.

I witnessed firsthand competitors throwing cut roller after cut roller (albeit on a longer Super Class caliber course) during the inaugural event. Don't get me wrong, this format COULD be successful; however, currently I don't see it as an effective way to reach out to ultimate players.

Just like disc golfers need to (or should) practice, ultimate players need to practice their disc skills. They can use disc golf courses to practice their throws. In addition, I'm hopeful that eventually their own promoters will run sanctioned Super Class events limited to discs approved for ultimate (which is allowed).

Just like disc golfers need to (or should) practice, ultimate players need to practice their disc skills. They can use disc golf courses to practice their throws. In addition, I'm hopeful that eventually their own promoters will run sanctioned Super Class events limited to discs approved for ultimate (which is allowed).



Then why have a format that makes their disc of choice obsolete? IMO, providing a format and ratings for Vintage Class and an Ultimate Class would have been a much better plan. I know that a lot of time went into this, but I see Super Class as an overlapping tournament structure that doesn't effectively cater to the goals it set forth to achieve. Again, I hope that I am proven wrong.

I think both Tim's showed they could tee with ultimate discs and compete even on a course that favored rollers. Just like bevel discs, on holes designed well for a division, length is only one factor that determines success. I also expect that ultimate players who try Super Class will play with discs besides their core Ulty discs. The difference is that those other discs fly like their ulty discs and won't mess with their form like bevel discs would.

I doubt we'll see many rollers (on purpose) in our winter Super Class league starting Sunday. Ultimate players may not throw rollers anyway since it's not yet allowed as a throw in their game.



The roller is certainly allowed in ultimate... but it is only useful once per point... on the pull.

The rules on pulls that go out of bounds encourage rollers. If the disc lands in bounds and then goes out, you get the disc on the sideline where it went out. If it goes out in the air, you get the option to start possession in the center of the field either even with where it went or on the 20 yard line.

The most brutal pull is the roller that lands in bounds and then cuts out of bounds right at the corner of the end zone and then continues to roll 20+ yards away giving the defense time to get down the field and get set up.

Rollers are also often used on the pull when you are throwing into a strong headwind.

So don't say rollers aren't a part of ultimate.

Glad to hear that skill is used for some shots.

i like the idea of a vintage class AND an ultimate class.

Considering that those behind Vintage Class specs, which were set in the early 90s, have not yet taken the initiative to add them to the PDGA specs, even though the PDGA was part of that process, perhaps it's not surprising that there haven't been PDGA competitions in this category. I'm hopeful to get those included when the Super Class wording is approved. The PDGA specs don't even state that there's such a thing as 150 Class even though it's been hosted by default at all Japanese events since sanctioning started.

Here's the latest draft of the Super Class logos for various purposes.
http://api.ning.com/files/UuWFNOlilobHS05eNRAQoHnX5MJkMk9ATfgaJ5Se09y9bG1S8V EnYWE*mBlNJz3NLf1ZrWNMhpYUuO6xRbBS5Ye3T9TqSq2W/SClogos.gif

Sorry Matt dont take it the wrong way, and its a bummer the whittler didn't make the list.
but,,,,
My personal opinion is an arbitrary number like 23.7 raises speculation about the line in the sand. ( 23.6 or 23.5 would do the same)
24 CM should have obviously been the rule as 24 x 8.3( similar arbitrary number but already being used) = 199.2 grams and closer to the associated rule of 200 grams.

the .8 rim width should have been 1cm
inner rim depth between 6-12%.

when you start pulling uneven numbers out of a hat like point anything,,, your going raise eyebrows about why that kind of line is drawn in the sand.

heres my old question i asked about the rules for the golf discs:
When a guy shows up with a custom hot stamped SC disc that is 23.6 who's going to measure it anyway??
Ive been involved in many MANY discussion on this board about how discs could or if they should be checked.
The overwhelming response, with many different reasons is;
players don't want to have their equipment checked at events!!
Also, TD's and organizers of events feel its a burden and would put undo and unnecessary strain on the TD's.

One of the PDGA's inherent problems is we have all kinds of rules on discs and play,,, with really no way of enforcing either of them.
We keep making rules for golf discs with no rules, protocols or procedures for enforcing the rules.
The idea of players enforcing rules on each other has proven somewhat unsuccessful, particularly at the highest levels of competition.
While one group is allowing foot faults ( sometime s but not watching or wanting to cause tension) and cussing, another group is calling courtesy violations at the drop of a hat ( pun intended)
I don't see either problem being solved easily or soon and maybe never!

There are some rules for which that argument has merit, but I think the players will have no problem enforcing the approved disc rule. Everybody came to play against opponents throwing big slow discs. Someone will object if I pull out a Destroyer on a 400 foot hole.

Nonetheless, I think Super Class will be like 16 inch softball or 19th century rules baseball -- fun for enthusiasts, but not the future of the game.

Never intended to be the "future" but fills a gap in our "current."

i saw a video of players at a guts game, some of those players have already developed a fantastic 360 degree spin throw.
i haven't learned that dance step yet, will that technique work for superclass?

The 360 run-up will only be useful if you can handle the amount it makes you spray the disc left or right.

In guts, if you are targeting a single player, you have about a 6 foot wide window you need to hit. If you are throwing it at the entire line, it is a much wider target, and only 15 yards away.

Sure, it will work for superclass. It will also work for regular DG on a big open hole where it doesn't matter where your drive lands because you have another full drive or two from the fairway coming up.

We may be doing 360s today at the first sanctioned Super Class league. However, that will likely be more the result of lots of snow on the ground. Wind chills still forecast below zero at the 1pm start. So we may actually fulfill the name of that annual winter event called the Cracked Plastic in Kalamazoo. :D

How are divisions going to work? I want to play, and I normally play PDGA pro, but I kind of suck at throwing lids.

Until we have Super Class propagators, divisions will be based on current definitions and PDGA ratings breaks. TDs can offer whatever divisions they wish to just like regular events. For our league which is only one round each week, we're only offering Open (935+), Intermediate (935>) and Rec (850>). Am Advanced players play Open and win merch if they cash to keep their amateur standing. It appears the skill levels get narrower (closer together) using Super Class discs so this division structure should provide larger divisions that are still fair. However, we'll just have to see how it shakes out once there's more play and information.

Nonetheless, I think Super Class will be like 16 inch softball or 19th century rules baseball -- fun for enthusiasts, but not the future of the game.



Somewhat agreed, but if we get some crossover then it has the chance to grow 'regular' disc golf. Just look at the number of people playing Ultimate (consult the Ultimate Players Association for actual statistics) and if we can get even a small percentage of them playing in Super Class events, then it's a boon to the sport. And maybe some of them play Super Class events for a while but then decide to give regular disc golf discs a shot and eventually play standard golf events. That's a lot of 'ifs' but in the meantime there's not the big downside that everyone is making it out to be. People act like Super Class demands oodles of resources and puts every single other PDGA initiative on a back burner. Hardly.

The discussion here should be about Super Class disc specs.
If you want to talk about SC events, it should be done on the original thread at ratings and skill based comp.
I agree with Dave Mac in that the diameter requirement seems suspicous.
I also think that had the PDGA embraced Vintage class to begin with or ressurected it now, there would be no need for Super Class and the conflict surrounding it.
In addition, the logo is incredibly uncool- no offence.

If I sound disgruntled it's because I am.

I agree that you should be disgruntled. I know I would be more gruntled if the spec included the Whitler and other smaller catch-type discs, or if at least the specs made more sense.

Free the Whitler!!!!!

I agree that you should be disgruntled. I know I would be more gruntled if the spec included the Whitler and other smaller catch-type discs, or if at least the specs made more sense.

Free the Whitler!!!!!



I agree. I think it would have made more sense to simply outlaw the beveled edge. Lids only. Simple and inclusive.

I agree that you should be disgruntled. I know I would be more gruntled if the spec included the Whitler and other smaller catch-type discs, or if at least the specs made more sense.

Free the Whitler!!!!!



I agree. I think it would have made more sense to simply outlaw the beveled edge. Lids only. Simple and inclusive.



This seems to be the will of the people, which should be a primary consideration of the PDGA and the super class committee.
I'm thinking of running a custom Whitler stamp that states:
FREE THE WHITLER - BOYCOTT SUPERCLASS!
Snap will be in contact with other members of the superclass committee in a motion to overturn the spec decision.

The Board approved the specs 5-2 last night. The good news for you is that the Vintage specs will be also be inserted in the tech specs so TDs will now know they have that option. So Whitler away in Vintage and regular bevel disc competitions. Please consider making a disc competitive in Super Class like several other manufacturers have already done or are planning to do.

Who were the five and who were the two?

Please consider making a disc competitive in Super Class like several other manufacturers have already done or are planning to do.



This is far from a feasable option for us, especially when we already have a golf-lid in production.


The Board approved the specs 5-2 last night. The good news for you is that the Vintage specs will be also be inserted in the tech specs so TDs will now know they have that option.



Meaning the option to allow vintage discs for SC events will be at the TD's discretion?

TD's can run an X-tier event that's limited strictly to Vintage discs of which some are Super Class. Or, they could run an X-tier event that's Super Class plus Vintage discs. The differences at least for 2009 are X-tier events limited to Super Class discs only will produce new Super Class ratings for members, have a lower sanctioning fee and no $10 non-member fee. In all of these types of events players would earn PDGA points.

Who were the five and who were the two?



I'll answer my own quesiton.

The five:
Bellinger
Korver
Gillis
Convers
Andrews

The two:
Decker
Rothstein

Boooooo!

I like the Whitler. I also understand the decision to go with the larger diameter. This would seem like a business opportunity for a whole new set of discs. Supporting the Super Class will create demand for new models, and might bring more players into the sport. Put me on the top of the list for a Super Whitler, but not a boycot.

how much demand, #'s wise, do you think will be created? some, but not enough to support the development and molding of new lids. just combine vintage and super class. would simplify things and achieve the same objectives in my opinion.

how much demand, #'s wise, do you think will be created? some, but not enough to support the development and molding of new lids. just combine vintage and super class. would simplify things and achieve the same objectives in my opinion.



Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!


Check out these pics I took of a Zephyr (approved) and my sweet, 147.8g, Wham-O 40-F Mold - Midnight Flyer (not approved).

Visual representation that this spec is BOGUS.

Rim to rim & aligned on the right side of the photo, you can see the difference in the diameter on the left side of the photo.

You can't even see the Zephyr underneath the 40 mold from the top view regardless of distance above the two discs. (not an optical illusion).

http://www.eatsleepdisc.com/spaw/uploads/images/sideview.jpg

http://www.eatsleepdisc.com/spaw/uploads/images/topview.jpg

how much demand, #'s wise, do you think will be created? some, but not enough to support the development and molding of new lids. just combine vintage and super class. would simplify things and achieve the same objectives in my opinion.



Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!


Check out these pics I took of a Zephyr (approved) and my sweet, 147.8g, Wham-O 40-F Mold - Midnight Flyer (not approved).

Visual representation that this spec is BOGUS.

Rim to rim & aligned on the right side of the photo, you can see the difference in the diameter on the left side of the photo.

You can't even see the Zephyr underneath the 40 mold from the top view regardless of distance above the two discs. (not an optical illusion).

http://www.eatsleepdisc.com/spaw/uploads/images/sideview.jpg

http://www.eatsleepdisc.com/spaw/uploads/images/topview.jpg



It seems to me that if you want to create a new division and the demand to play that division is in question, that you should leave the rules as inclusive as possible. Creating specs that OUTLAW so many discs in people's closets already is a bad idea. Quite frankly I hardly ever disagree with the PDGA in that I know that pleasing everyone is impossible and lines always have to be drawn and Chuck's explanations usually make sense to me. Here is an exception. It does seem strange to me that the specs barely allow the Zephyr and in the process outlaw many manufactured discs by a small margin (night flyer, whitler).

Go and look in your golf bag right now and compare the difference in diameter of your largest and smallest disc you carry. The difference for most will be less than 10mm and no more than 15mm even if you carry a Whitler. Bevel edged discs that are actually used by most players have evolved into a very narrowly defined range of characteristics that have produced a competitive identity even though all PDGA Approved discs more than two inches larger could be used in theory.

Super Class going from a Super Hero to a Super Nova already spans 38mm. If any changes are needed down the road, it will be to raise the diameter minimum and reduce the range, not increase. A defined disc category needs some commonality of characteristics for a competition identity. Super Class has that identity as the largest diameter, tallest height, bluntest edge and optionally heaviest PDGA approved discs. There's no way a 100g Pole Cat, 150g Whitler, 200g Fastback and 175g Ultra-Star should be part of the same defined competitive class spanning 65mm diameter difference.

Who's arguing for the Pole Cat?

Pole Cats, Birdies, Piranhas and Rattlers are all Vintage discs as are all of the discs listed in the margin of the chart on the first page of this thread. That's what some are arguing should be included with Super Class.

if you are worried about the lower end, and getting too much variety into the mix, why not just use upa approved ultimate discs?

For one, this is PDGA and two, there's not enough variety in weights, plastics and performance characteristics within the ultimate discs. And third, I've already said that TDs could run an event limited to just ultimate discs within Super Class if they wish.

chuck--good point about the polecat, etc. i did not realize that vintage class included these discs. the aforementioned discs are golf discs in my opinion. I understand your intent here, but it seems things were rushed and not discussed enough prior to acting. You have to admit, it is ridiculous for the zephyr to be allowed, and not the 40 mold. when setting the specs, did you consider these situations? did you start out by looking at what discs are out there and develop the specs accordingly, so as not to disallow one disc that is a mm or so diffirent from another? A simple idea (as stated above) would be to leave vintage class alone (or even up the minimum diameter to make it truly vintage) and have superclass be only approved ultimate discs. That sounds like what you are shooting for anyway.

How many Vintage Class events were run in 2008?

SuperClass seems to be more embraced and publicized by the PDGA as a competition structure than Vintage was/is.

The argument from me is to be able to use the Whitler and the 40 Mold. That's it. It's not about anything else.

http://www.eatsleepdisc.com/spaw/uploads/images/sideview.jpg

it just seems strange to want a specific amount of variety, but not too much. i understand that you dont want to include 'golf discs', or 'beveled discs', but on the same note it seems that you would want to not even approach the area between them (like the zepher). i dont have a position on these arguments about superclass, it just seems a bit arbitrary at times or even half hearted, the defining line. it occurs to me that the purest form of superclass would only include the deep rimmed, large diameter, catch discs... that were designed simply for throwing and catching, like the ultrastar and jstar, and nothing that was produced for the idea of throwing it any distance without someone to catch it. (things made with disc golf in mind, and even marketed for disc golf) im not arguing, just expressing observations.

chuck-if the specs were changed so that the whittler-size diameter was the minimum, and assuming no other changes were made to the specs, would this allow other discs as well? if so, which ones?

And there's no technical justification just a desire. Diameter is too small. If Homburg gets a disc from a manufacturer that's 20.9 cm, it won't get approved even if the manufacturer thinks it will be a cool disc. Someone set the 21 cm minimum for bevel discs. Whether arbitrary or not, the line was drawn. I would like to use 170 g Zephyrs for Accuracy, especially on windy days. But the Vintage spec was set at 6.7g times diameter so the max weight for Zephyrs allowed is 161.5g. Oh well.

Look at the chart on the first page. Again, it's not just about the existing discs but the specs they bring with them, the potential for manufacturers to develop category killers and the lack of an identity for the category which is already 2-3 times larger than the effective range for bevel discs.

it occurs to me that the purest form of superclass would only include the deep rimmed, large diameter, catch discs... that were designed simply for throwing and catching, like the ultrastar and jstar, and nothing that was produced for the idea of throwing it any distance without someone to catch it.


In theory I don't disagree. However, the J*Star is an ultimate disc that's the same diameter as the Zephyr. And the measured rim configuration on the Zephyr (83) is similar (89). And yet, by flattening the shape of it, it flies a little farther. That's the thing about specs. You don't know what might be possible since existing discs weren't optimized for distance as their original intent.

And there's no technical justification just a desire. Diameter is too small. If Homburg gets a disc from a manufacturer that's 20.9 cm, it won't get approved even if the manufacturer thinks it will be a cool disc. Someone set the 21 cm minimum for bevel discs. Whether arbitrary or not, the line was drawn. I would like to use 170 g Zephyrs for Accuracy, especially on windy days. But the Vintage spec was set at 6.7g times diameter so the max weight for Zephyrs allowed is 161.5g. Oh well.



The "someone" who set the 21cm diameter minimum was the body of PDGA players, who voted in 1983 on the technical specs (I'm citing an August, 1983 PDGA newsletter). 21 cm (195 votes) was the only choice on the ballot, aside from "other" (40 votes) and "abstain" (34 votes). There was no scientific basis for 21 cm - it just so happened that the market leading golf discs at that time were the DGA Kitty Hawk and Dynamic Discs Puppy, both with a diameter of 21 cm. In other words, the minimum diameter was set with an eye towards including discs that were already under manufacture.

I don't see how you can assail others for having "no technical justification" for wanting to include slightly smaller discs, then admit that the 21 cm limit was arbitrary, thus justifying the current arbitrary Super Class limit. And I really don't see that you have provided any scientific or technical justification for your specifications - you only have measurements that you deem to be appropriate tops and bottoms of the specs. Do you have scientific or technical evidence to justify the claim that a slightly smaller disc would be a "category killer" as you describe?

BTW, someone above stated that they felt that discs designed for "catch" should be included, and I think that's a good point. The Wham-O 40-mold was introduced in about 1974 (a little fuzzy on the exact year) primarily as a catch disc. There were no such things as specialized golf discs at that time, much less heavy or beveled-edge discs. And the Wham-O 70-mold (22.5 cm, .1 cm smaller than the Whitler) came out about a year or two later, also as a catch disc. These discs are bigger and blunter than what we now consider to be "golf" discs, because they were designed for catch and throw games. They are Super discs, in my opinion.

Having run or been involved in several Vintage disc golf events over the years since the specs were set in the 90s, the insiders know that the premium Pole Cat (~100g) we all got in player packs around then is a category killer (for normal arms, not gorillas) along with the Gopher in terms of throwing farther than the 160g Zephyrs several players had because it's the disc of choice for Accuracy.

Distance in the Zephyr range for typical throwers was the initial reference point for developing SC in the first place to produce more par 4s and 5s on existing courses. And our tests have shown that works. The 23.7 cm spec nicely splits the range of disc diameters between 21 and 27.5. I'll admit 23.7 may turn out to be too small once manufacturers try to squeeze more distance from the specs. If that's shown to be true, we can just increase the minimum diameter if the class becomes popular enough that it matters. But certainly there's no concern that diameter was not set low enough.

The Zephyr is more of a 'golf' disc than a Whitler or a 40 Mold & certainly much easier to putt with.

If the spec is lowered, couldn't there be a caveat for a submitted disc to have a minimum rim configuration and weight/cm to allow the 40 mold and Whitler up to a given weight, similar to the accuracy rules?

This would prevent any "category killing".

It's called Vintage Class and it's already been there for 15 years as a spec and for the history of the sport in general.

Super Class is designed to be a golf class with distance constraints due to large size and shape with enough weight to handle wind and chains. It's not catch discs that might be used for playing golf which is what you have with Vintage discs.

Do you get a separate player rating with Vintage Class?

http://www.eatsleepdisc.com/spaw/uploads/images/sideview.jpg

Not at the moment. But then Vintage discs are not intrinsically designed as "Golf" discs. But you can get rankings in Freestyle and maybe Guts with Vintage discs.

Not at the moment. But then Vintage discs are not intrinsically designed as "Golf" discs.



<font color="red">Neither are Ultimate lids or DDC discs designed as 'golf' discs but they are approved for SC!!

BTW...Are you saying that the PoleCat wasn't intrinsically designed for disc golf?</font>

Would you agree since Vintage has been around much longer than SC, Vintage should get a separate player rating as well?


But you can get rankings in Freestyle and maybe Guts with Vintage discs.



<font color="red">Wha?? Were talking about player ratings for golf, why would you bring that up?</font>

It should if the format is ever approved by the Competition Committee and Board as a separate class that needs it. But I wouldn't recommend it since it's not intended to be a golf class. In fact, the Overalls allow bevel discs for golf and distance. If we had thought adopting Vintage specs as they are for Super Class, we certainly wouldn't have gone thru what we did to develop a large disc golf class. I've already talked to some overalls promoters and they like the idea of switching to Super Class for golf and distance because they wouldn't need to find sites with fields as large for distance which is always a problem.

There are several discs not designed to be golf discs in Super Class but now they can be competitive by adding weight in some cases or modifying their shape. The Ching Heavy hasn't been submitted for approval yet but essentially is similar to a heavier Ultra-Star. Likewise, the Super Nova is a heavier, bigger version of the Zephyr with a flatter rim design that's similar.

it is obviously ridiculous to allow the zephyr and not the 40 mold. especially since the 40 mold probably flys more "superclass style" than the zephyr. It seems the spec was chosen in order for the zephyr to be the best choice allowed. Like Dave mac said a few pages back, the simple rule should be 24 cm /200 grams. this would go further to achieve the objective i believe, while avoiding arguments about the smaller discs, leaving them to vintage class, and super-style discs to the super class. would you guys be open to changing it to {true ultimate style discs} 24 cm min., 200 g max?
also--where is the chart that lists the discs and their specs? i saw the chart that compared reg., vintage, and super, but thought there was another.

Would you agree the Pluto Platter is a vintage disc? Its rim configuration is more aggressive than the Zephyr as are the Whitler and Fastback. There's no easy way to write the spec based on the shape of the rim to include/exclude shapes, just the rim configuration value. The Zephyr had been more optimized for distance than some in the class but that had little to do with setting the spec at that point.

The magic line at 23.7 cm was drawn so all discs in Super Class could be 200g if the manufacturer wished. Vintage discs for golf have always been a pain for TDs to police since the same mold is legal for regular golf at higher weights but not for vintage. That's not the case for Super Class where all legal weights of a mold for regular golf are also legal for Super Class.

The Tech team is finalizing all of the text and diagrams for the Board approved specs both for discs and for targets. They should get up on the PDGA site in the next day or so.

apparently somewhere along the way there was a push for the zepher to specifically be included.

are there washington lobbyists working for disc golf companies these days? kidding, kidding.

There's no question that the Zephyr provided at least one benchmark for the category since it was a disc that had been produced as a golf upshot disc and optimized for longer stable flight in its size range. Many overalls players were also familiar with its performance for accuracy and discathon. It was also a bonus that it still didn't perform that much better than ultimate discs thrown by skilled ultimate players which was another reference point.

If you're creating a category to limit potential distance capabilities, it makes sense to study what appears to be the longest performing disc in the range as a starting point to determine what specs might be relevant. It's not like we could study wind tunnel results varying rim config, height and diameter or do scientific testing to figure things out. Our hope was that whatever further optimization might be possible with the Super Class specs that were set, that new disc molds or tweaks to current ones might come close to the Zephyr's distance capability and maybe even exceed it but hopefully not by too much.

I think the Te Moko which is similar in design to the Zephyr and flies about the same showed that is possible. So we've had at least some initial confirmation of that idea. If the Te Moko had come first, it would have been looked at first. So it had nothing to do with which manufacturer had the longest flier initially. We were more worried about missing a longer flier in that spec area that we didn't know about.

There's no question that the Zephyr provided at least one benchmark for the category since it was a disc that had been produced as a golf upshot disc and optimized for longer stable flight in its size range.



What about the fact that the Zephyr is your pet disc?

Thanks to all of you who re-affirmed that I am not insane!

Several others in our SC group were throwing Zephyrs and all the other Vintage and Super Class discs long before I got in the game. Greenwell found an original test disc that eventually was called the Zephyr in his thousands of discs. I've always been a reluctant overalls player and participated only because the Twin Cities has hosted two Senior overalls events since the 80s. I've had to buy some of these discs back then so I could compete. I've had no love for any of these discs in particular but at least knew what they could do for the different events. Last spring I had to dig through all my bevel discs to find them, blow off the dust and test them all out. So the Zephyr was just a rediscovered disc suited for the new category. Nothing more.

There are several things I believe new SC models might be able to do a little better than the Zephyr so I hope we get the chance to see them. And I and most other players could easily throw Vintage approved, 100g premium Pole Cats farther than any SC disc including the Zephyr. But you don't see us bending the specs to include that longer flying Vintage disc... because it doesn't fit in.

I don't see anyone arguing for the Polecat here.

Pole Cat is a Vintage disc and some have argued Vintage and Super Class be combined.

I think the reason someone suggested merging Vintage with Super was to get the larger-lid-like vintage discs into play, such as the Wham-O 40-mold, 70-mold and the Whitler.

No one has argued for going as small as the Polecat. Please don't misrepresent what the players are asking for as a means of bolstering your argument.

Too small is too small whether 0.2 or 1.1 or 2.6 cm.

First SuperClass T-shirt design:

SUPERCLASS: Size DOES Matter!

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/2008/04/small-penis.jpg

i understand most of the rational behind all this, but why draw where it barely includes a popular disc (zephyr) and barely excludes a popular disc (40 mold). knowing that the discs are that close, why not draw the line allowing the 40 mold instead of not allowing it? I will try not to comment again, but it seems like if you wanted a super class, make it super (ultimate) discs, instead of drawing the line a little smaller so a particular disc can sneak in under the specs. It just seems if you are going to do that, why not give another freakin' MILLIMETER or 2 so others can use their favorite? I am only referring to the 40 mold, as it is so close. not the whittler or the polecat(?), which are obviously too small in diameter for what you are going for.

oh yea--can someone give a link to the list of discs that are approved for superclass and those that are barely not approved? I know I saw one here before...

The list is in my photos on DGRUS site until we can get the new spec sheet uploaded to the PDGA site next week. But they are also listed in the margin on the diagram on the first page of this thread.

The line was drawn with respect to specs and not specific discs. Manufacturers would not have it any other way or it would appear to be pandering. The rationale was that all SC discs would be legal to 200 grams. By using the precedent set by 150 Class in Japan, which the PDGA had already allowed a 2% weight tolerance, that meant 23.7 cm was the magic number for Super Class. The very fact that we have discs so close on either side of the line is partial indication we made the determination without manufacturer influence or player pressure.

The manufacturers have had no concern with the specs we set and how we set them. Some don't care since they currently don't plan to make any SC discs. Dave D's only concern was whether 200 g should be the max weight allowed. I agree. But we would not set the spec below what was allowed for regular competition discs. So unless there's an initiative to reduce the max weight allowed to 190 or 185 for all discs, we would follow the existing 200g guidelines.

makes sense. do you have a link to the list on your site? thx

Super Class discs (http://api.ning.com/files/s5nv4CKb9kOlXGZ5JXyXMfH1A-50TGz*OeO7Axfo3iB4H8SBXO7oisjeSLcGRVc2C*JzZO2iYZgh GNBYHEPMes88vMCpjF4P/ProposedSCDiscs1108.jpg)

The manufacturers have had no concern with the specs we set and how we set them.


We have legitamate concerns and were not contacted prior to the establishment of SC specs.


So unless there's an initiative to reduce the max weight allowed to 190 or 185 for all discs, we would follow the existing 200g guidelines.


Reduce the Max. weight. and the diameter requirement! 200 grams isn't a weight that anyone throws, especially rec players. Ultimate players are going to throw Ultrastars.

I think a sponsored player like Greenwell and several other veterans would be the loudest opponents to reducing the max weight for all discs since they have those 200g Condors rollin', rollin', rollin'.

200g is rediculously heavy. I've got a 200 gram Wham-O 80 mold and I can throw the 175g ultra-star much further. I'm no weenie arm either. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

190 could easily be the max weight allowed spec and you wouldn't receive nearly as many concerns as have been voiced here about the diameter spec. :o

Are condors legal for SuperClass? I didn't think they were.

Condors are not legal for Super Class. But we would only restrict the max weight for Super Class to some number below 200 if it were also reduced in the specs for all discs. Condors may be the only bevel discs out there that anyone throws at 200g.

Condors are not legal for Super Class. But we would only restrict the max weight for Super Class to some number below 200 if it were also reduced in the specs for all discs. Condors may be the only bevel discs out there that anyone throws at 200g.



... and Jaguars.

...and Lynxes

The Ching Ultimate (175g) and Ching Heavy (195g) discs were just PDGA Approved today and both are now approved for Super Class competition.

I had my first Super Class ACE yesterday at McGregor park in Houston with a 197 Zephyer......I'm hooked :D:cool:

That's great! I haven't heard of any in sanctioned play (in a basket) yet but that sounds like the first basket ace of any kind so far. I'll bet it looked really cool watching it in slo-mo compared to speed of bevel discs? I had an object ace (tree trunk) in our test event back in September but I'm hunting for one on a basket.

I had my first Super Class ACE yesterday at McGregor park in Houston with a 197 Zephyer......I'm hooked :D:cool:



Which hole? Obviously the Zephyr will be the big dawg in superclass. I bet I could throw it farther than a 40_mold.

One manufacturer has indicated they are working specifically on a mold for Super Class. So it will be interesting to see if they take on the Zephyr.

One manufacturer has indicated they are working specifically on a mold for Super Class. So it will be interesting to see if they take on the Zephyr.



So you also feel it is superior compared to the current discs?

Obviously, and that is probably why it squeaked in.

The only reason it MAY be superior right now is that it's the only one in its diameter range that's available in golf weights or heavier. We haven't been able to see what the other models in Super Class can do until the manufacturers beef their weight up even a little. They don't even need to go to 200g. So far, I throw SC discs in the 165-175g range better than heavier ones off the tee unless it's a headwind.

Zephyr is pretty great when it comes to super class. Its not the best however, in my opinion the Te Moko is the king of super class. What other disc can you release on an anhyzer and count on it to come back.

Zephyr is pretty great when it comes to super class. Its not the best however, in my opinion the Te Moko is the king of super class. What other disc can you release on an anhyzer and count on it to come back.




So the two "best" SC discs as of right now are also two of the smallest diameter and they also are fairly low profile. Maybe they should have been left out.

Zephyr is pretty great when it comes to super class. Its not the best however, in my opinion the Te Moko is the king of super class. What other disc can you release on an anhyzer and count on it to come back.



A Champion Zephyr, it has more stability then the Te Moko...., but I think Innova just ran a couple of them..

So far, the few test Champion Zephyrs were less stable than DX Zephyrs. The Te Moko is the most stable SC disc I've seen so far. But there are several models we haven't seen in heavier weights yet and mold tweaks could also change that. I still think it's going to be challenging to design these discs with a stability more than +1 but we'll see.

I seriously doubt we'll ever see a Wham-O Professional or Wham-O Master ever run in premium weighted plastic. Even though they are in the Super Class spec, I don't think they'll see much if any use in Super Class.

I already talked with Mangone and he's looking into adding some weight (but not using premium plastic) to some models when he gets the chance but he's not sure which models or when yet. Waisblum from Wham-O is also looking into what they want to do along those lines and in concert with DTW.

I would bet on the 100-mold. It's a currrent production model and was a very serviceable disc in Midnight Flyer plastic. Very straight flying.

Hummm, a 100 mold huh? I've got some of the High Rigidity Lites, a 100 mold FREESTYLE disc. Can the High Rigidity plastic be made with the weighting ingredients?

Just think, trying to do a "Physco Bash" with a 199g. High Ridge Lite! And if you try a chest roll and miss just a little, that thing could take out teeth as well as bust your lip! :D

I would bet on the 100-mold. It's a currrent production model and was a very serviceable disc in Midnight Flyer plastic. Very straight flying.



MF-100-forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am running out of MF�s, Allen I hope you are right!!!!!!!!!!!!

So far, the few test Champion Zephyrs were less stable than DX Zephyrs. The Te Moko is the most stable SC disc I've seen so far. But there are several models we haven't seen in heavier weights yet and mold tweaks could also change that. I still think it's going to be challenging to design these discs with a stability more than +1 but we'll see.



I am puzzled, I tried one Champ Zephyr (197grams) together with Dx Zephyr (194gr) and a Te Moko (186gram), and the Champ is the most stable of them. Indoors so no wind. Ok the Champ was brand new and the other two have been trown before,.... but anyway?

PS Is the latest run of DX Zephyrs more stable?

I'm not sure what Champ Zephyrs you are throwing? To my knowledge they haven't been made for production, just some test models made in December which Dave sent me. The ones I got were a little less stable than regular production DX Zephyrs. No difference noted in older versus newer DX that we just received. Pretty much dead straight on stability with Te Moko probably +1.

Don't question how Kjell gets his hands on plastic - he just does.

Does the 70 mold meet the SC standards?

Diameter is too small. SC discs are listed here: http://discgolfer.ning.com/photo/proposed-sc-discs-2009

Plus two Ching discs need to be added: Ching Heavy and Ching Ultimate

I'm not sure what Champ Zephyrs you are throwing? To my knowledge they haven't been made for production, just some test models made in December which Dave sent me. The ones I got were a little less stable than regular production DX Zephyrs. No difference noted in older versus newer DX that we just received. Pretty much dead straight on stability with Te Moko probably +1.



I have two samples from that Champion testrun.

Must be the variability you get in a test run then. I'm guessing your outdoor temps are as cold as here for testing.

Diameter is too small. SC discs are listed here: http://discgolfer.ning.com/photo/proposed-sc-discs-2009

Plus two Ching discs need to be added: Ching Heavy and Ching Ultimate



70 mold diameter is too small? compared to a Zephyr at 24.1 on your list? this will go for the 71 mold too i assume... not that i dont believe you but i will be going home to do some measurements after work :D :D theyve gotta be super close to 24.1 in diamter though. :D

More than a 1/2 inch smaller. Look in the Tech Specs documents: http://www.pdga.com/tech-standards

What about a case where someone has a disc that they can prove meets the specs with a measurement device, but the one examined by the PDGA did not meet the specs. I'm thinking about some of the molds that are really close. Different plastic blends, temps could cause different shrink rates causing some to be legal and some not.

They're going to say, "Only the mold is approved, not the disc."

It's just like regular discs, if the model isn't submitted or is not approved if it is, it's not yet legal. We get submissions regularly that do not pass initial tests. In the past few years, some initial submission samples were either too small in diameter or too stiff in flexibility. Later samples then passed. Same thing with targets. There are several homemade targets I've seen that would probably meet specs but were never submitted for approval.

Diameter is too small. SC discs are listed here: http://discgolfer.ning.com/photo/proposed-sc-discs-2009

Plus two Ching discs need to be added: Ching Heavy and Ching Ultimate



70 mold diameter is too small? compared to a Zephyr at 24.1 on your list? this will go for the 71 mold too i assume... not that i dont believe you but i will be going home to do some measurements after work :D :D theyve gotta be super close to 24.1 in diamter though. :D



It's a cryin' shame isn't it? Sure seems like the 70-mold, 40-mold and Whitler are well within the spirit of Super Class, but Chuck has drawn his line in the cement. See, normally I'd call it a line in the sand, but there's a possibility of changing a line in the sand.

Did I read somewhere that one of the requirements for SC was that the disc had a diameter large enough to meet the 200g Max Weight? Or another words that all SC discs are supposed to have the ability to be 200g?

Thanks,

Richard

Yes.

Yes.



If that is the case, then why are there discs on the list that do not meet the 200g Max weight requirement (Te Moko, Type 235, and others)? Were there exceptions made for these discs?

Thanks,

Richard

No. It's been posted before that due to the weight tolerance allowed for the 150 class discs up to 152g, we looked at a similar percentage tolerance for Super Class which would be 3g. That meant a 23.7 cm disc would have a max weight of 197g at 8.3g/cm but actually 200g with the 3g tolerance added. That's why 23.7 cm diameter is the minimum spec not 24.1.

No. It's been posted before that due to the weight tolerance allowed for the 150 class discs up to 152g, we looked at a similar percentage tolerance for Super Class which would be 3g. That meant a 23.7 cm disc would have a max weight of 197g at 8.3g/cm but actually 200g with the 3g tolerance added. That's why 23.7 cm diameter is the minimum spec not 24.1.



I just want to make sure that I fully understand. In the case of 150 class you are allowed to use a disc that is 152? Which means it is a weight increase. Therefore if the same logic was used for Super Class, wouldn't that allow you to use a disc that was 203g? I guess I don't understand how a disc would be approved, if by design it doesn't even meet the minimum requirements of the spec.

Of course that may just be my funky logic.

Richard

If you have a 24.1 cm or larger diameter SC disc that weighs up to 203g it would be allowed. If you have a 23.7 cm diameter SC disc, a 203g version wouldn't be allowed but a 200g version would since it's only 3g above the spec weight max of 197g.

Diameter is too small. SC discs are listed here: http://discgolfer.ning.com/photo/proposed-sc-discs-2009

Plus two Ching discs need to be added: Ching Heavy and Ching Ultimate



70 mold diameter is too small? compared to a Zephyr at 24.1 on your list? this will go for the 71 mold too i assume... not that i dont believe you but i will be going home to do some measurements after work :D :D theyve gotta be super close to 24.1 in diamter though. :D



It's a cryin' shame isn't it? Sure seems like the 70-mold, 40-mold and Whitler are well within the spirit of Super Class, but Chuck has drawn his line in the cement. See, normally I'd call it a line in the sand, but there's a possibility of changing a line in the sand.



well the 71c molds i have fits inside the inside-diameter of the Zephyr. its ironic to disallow those molds since the zephyr is a more capable disc to throw. i can certainly score lower rounds with the zephyr.... so now i have to find a super class event west of the continental divide and ill be there with my Zephyr!. :p

If you have a 24.1 cm or larger diameter SC disc that weighs up to 203g it would be allowed. If you have a 23.7 cm diameter SC disc, a 203g version wouldn't be allowed but a 200g version would since it's only 3g above the spec weight max of 197g.



So I guess to answer my original question, if there were exceptions given for various discs, the answer would be yes.

Richard

Twist the words all you wish but there are no special exemptions. The Tech Specs say 23.7 cm and larger diameter with a rim config of 75 or higher and max weight based on 8.3g/cm. The tech specs do not allow discs more than 150g in 150 Class. However, the Competition Director determined what's acceptable in the field and they said 152 at the Japan Open. That's where the tolerances come in.

For example, if for some reason a manufacturer made the mistake of submitting a 23.7 cm disc for approval and sent one that weighed 199, Homburg would reject it. However, if that same disc was submitted in a lighter weight and got approved, then later a player had a 200g model, the TD could allow it based on manufacturing tolerances that allow 3g. That's how the interplay works between specs and Competition. It's the same way with the Competition rules versus the basic rules. The Competition Director determines how the basic rules are applied for fairness in the field during PDGA competition in areas that may need more clarity.

Don't get me wrong, I like the concept of Super Class. I am looking forward to playing in Super Class Events if anyone runs them around town.

I am also cool with exceptions being made and even allowing tolerances in the spec, I just wanted to understand the reasoning behind them. Whether I agree with them or not, if those are the rules, that is what I will play by.

Richard

it seems to me since there is an arbitrary tolerance of a few grams, then why was the line drawn to barely let in the zephyr, and barely disqualify some of the numbered whamo molds. i understand the logic behind drawing the line where you did, and appreciate your work on this, but you must have known that you were excluding at least a few discs by just MILLIMETERS, and given that you are allowing a weight tolerance, it does not seem fair to those discs to be disallowed over such a miniscule difference, especially when you are okay with slight out-of-range weights. I am not advocating allowing the whittler or any other smaller disc, but how about a tiny size tolerance to allow these discs that have been around forever and are oh-so-close to the spec to make it in?

We don't have any technical justification for doing so. The logic behind the choices we made produced exact and simple specs independent of specific discs or manufacturers. Providing any more wiggle room would cater to a specific disc and manufacturer. That's not the appropriate way to do specs. I'm not even sold on going below 24.1 cm. But we had a committee which can involve some compromise. The 3g tolerance concept proved the acceptable approach to keeping with specs and not discs while allowing a slightly smaller diameter.

The concensus I have reached as a result of the specs. controversy surrounding Super Class is this:
There is significant player demand for the PDGA to endorse Vintage class to the same degree (if not more so) than Super Class.
As far as I see it, the PDGA is obliged to do so for the sake of diplomacy with regard to the companies and players who support them.

Must be the variability you get in a test run then. I'm guessing your outdoor temps are as cold as here for testing.



Chuck, we tried them out again last sunday under "controlled" conditions ;), indoors (it is freezing outside).
I am still puzzled, I have two Champion Zephyrs. One is flying quite understable (as you wrote), less stable than the Dx-version. But the other one is flying like a Te Moko (well, it is finishing even more stable, it has more fade than Te Moko), the difference, well, it has a much higher dome than the other Ch Zephyr (it also has one big dimple/dent on the edge, error in the molding process, ! We are talking big differences here, what is the rating for the Zephyr, 3,5,0,0 (?), I would say, 3,5,1,1 for the "mutant-Zephyr"!
So you were right.

I haven't tested all four samples personally with multiple throws. I'm using them as loaners for our Sunday Super Class league for people who either don't have a disc yet or want to try another heavier disc in addition to what they have. At least one seems to fly neutral but we also haven't had too much wind to deal with at league the past several weeks.

sadly, the Zephyr is just a poor man's Whitler.
;)

sadly, the Zephyr is just a poor man's Whitler.
;)



Yeah I know :D :cool:

Copied from the Ratings &amp; Skill Based Competition Forum (http://discussion.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=906493&amp;page=0&amp;vc=1&amp;PHPSE SSID=#Post906493)


Chuck said:

We have some controversy about the 40 mold because it appears all 40 molds are not the same. A buddy showed me his 40 mold this weekend and it was bigger than a Fastback and smaller than a Zephyr putting it around 23.9 cm (without actually measuring it). I asked Homburg about it and he checked some of his personal discs that were 40 series, some were F or G mold, and two were 23.7 cm making them right on the edge of compliance.

The big issue is fairness. If Wham-O actually went into production again with a "40 mold" that met the 23.7 minimum and labeled them something like 40SC, those could be approved but not any of the original models. With several sizes of 40 series out there and the disc apparently not being produced currently, it doesn't seem fair to approve a disc for SC that requires players to find it on eBay or have been around for 25 years to pull one out of the closet.




You can see that the diameter difference appears less than what the spec sheet says. This is a 40F resting on top of a Zephyr rim to rim.

Why does the mold have to be appoved for SC? Can't any PDGA approved disc that meets the SC spec be used?
Why can't you just measure a disc and see if it meets the spec?

http://www.eatsleepdisc.com/spaw/uploads/images/sideview.jpg

Listen to an update on Super Class in the last 10 minutes of the first 2009 episode of PDGA Radio: www.pdga.com/pdgaradio (http://www.pdga.com/pdgaradio)

just use the disc on top of the zephyr for god's sake. no one in their right mind would hassle you for it.

Chuck is a Zephyr lobbyist......

chuck,
is the frisbee disc heavyweight 200 gram disc allowed?
or the discraft skystyler freestyle sportdisc?

Check out the Approved disc list: www.pdga.com/tech-standards (http://www.pdga.com/tech-standards)
Both are approved assuming you mean the Ching Heavyweight which I believe is 195g. Look at the column near the right side for the letter 'S' indicating Super Class discs which are all legal to 200g.

is the jaguar not used in super class becaue of the rim height?

Rim sharpness. The Jaguar, Condor and Lynx are the only discs with a large enough diameter for Super Class but too much of a beveled edge than allowed.

Wham-O (Frisbee) makes a 200g Heavyweight (http://www.frisbeesuperstore.com/f90010.html) ....don't know the exact mold number but it's the size of an 80 mold......I think that's what Bravo was talking about not the Ching Heavy.

just use the disc on top of the zephyr for god's sake. no one in their right mind would hassle you for it.



I won't purposely use an illegal disc......but your point is taken. I have no doubt that people will use these in competition and most TD's will allow it because they won't be checking. Most players either won't know or won't care, they will just see a lid and say "oh, that disc is ok".