[Question] Should the PDGA standardize flight ratings?

[ru4por]

Flight numbers don't mean anything. They can give you the vaguest of an idea of how the manufacturer wants you to think the disc flies. Why is there an obsession with them?

I think most golfers see flight numbers this way. You need to have SOME kind of idea what a disc is about when buying on line. Outside of a picture, you depend on some kind of information to determine a putter from a driver, stable from understable...

Could be a written description, but that is still completely subjective. Could be a pictogram, but that is still completely subjective. Could be a video, of some guy chucking the disc, but again...completely subjective.

I think the point IS to provide "vaguest of an idea of how the manufacturer want you the think the disc flies".

 

[biscoe]

Flight numbers don't mean anything. They can give you the vaguest of an idea of how the manufacturer wants you to think the disc flies. Why is there an obsession with them?

Mostly because they are often the only "information" someone has in purchasing a disc.

They are 110% useless to me but players in the shop reference them constantly.

 

[autocrosscrx]

My journey...

-Decide that I want to play disc golf.
-Go to the sporting good store.
-Buy a driver and a putter. Decide to hold off on the mid-range. End up getting a DX Wraith and a Classic Blend Judge that might be my favorite disc currently.
-Go play. Can't do anything with the Wraith. Throwing the putter never crosses my mind. Because golf.
-Play with a friend that is more experienced. He sees the Wraith and tells me about the disc speed and how an 11 speed is too much for someone learning. Tells me to buy a 6 or a 7 speed.
-Go buy a Leopard. Go play. Have a much better time.
-Lose the Leopoard. Decide to try a Teebird. Not as good for me as the Lepoard, but okay.
-Play with same friend. I ask him about maybe trying a different disc next time. He tells me about premium plastic. Tells me to stick to a 7 speed.
-Go lose the Teebird.
-Go buy Prodigy F2 in 400 plastic. Throw it and it was awful for me. Fades much harder and doesn't go anywhere near as far as even the Leopard.

Trying to figure out why I couldn't throw my new F2 the way I wanted is when I learned about glide, turn, and fade. Not every disc that I've bought has worked out for me, but I've largely made good purchasing decisions and haven't been shocked by the flight of my new purchases. And I credit flight numbers for that.

 

[Puckstopper]

Sure, having a standardized rating by the PDGA or another governing body would be great! Of course, that would require the manufacturers to get their discs to fly consistently from one run to another...

 

[PMantle]

Yes, absolutely. And they should come up with a meaningful test for speed. Such as, a throwing device that releases discs at a set MPH, then a measurement of the reduction in speed at a set distance, or maybe different distances for different classes of discs.

 

[Emoney]

No. Flight numbers are subjective. To micro-analyze the disc flight before you even throw it is worthless.

It gives you a general idea. Each run and plastic type will fly different.
Also, each player throws different.

No point in doing this. Too many variables.

 

[DiscFifty]

Does anyone know exactly what the PDGA process is when it comes to approving a disc?

 

[elmexdela]

each player throws differently but its still relative

 

[Three Putt]

Does anyone know exactly what the PDGA process is when it comes to approving a disc?

They get out the calipers and make sure it meets specs. It doesn't involve throwing it and determining how it flies.

 

[Discette]

Does anyone know exactly what the PDGA process is when it comes to approving a disc?

Yes, the PDGA has all of the information HERE:

PDGA Tech Standards Page

It can answer ANY questions you may have about the process, but only if you read it. :|


Of course it took a special set of talents to find that using GOOGLE.

 

[DiscFifty]

Yes, the PDGA has all of the information HERE:

PDGA Tech Standards Page

It can answer ANY questions you may have about the process, but only if you read it. :|

Of course it took a special set of talents to find that using GOOGLE.

It took longer for the put down than to just add a link. Nicely done! :thmbup:

 

[uncle pennybags]

Could all disc manufactures be held to some reporting standard like tires? (Speed, tread ware, load rating) I realize that more tires are produced than discs and that with tires it was probably federally mandated, but it could be done.

Will it be done, probably not, there is no real incentive for the PDGA and all disc manufactures to work together on this.

Should it be done? I'm all for it. Especially if disc manufactures can figure out how to bake in differences in plastics, colors, and other factors. It would make buying discs much more consumer friendly.

At the end of the day, I'm not holding my breath. I'd die,

 

[BillFleming]

Ball golf does something similar, there is a "robot golfer" that is used to determine compression and distance. Disc golf could do it, if someone could create a machine that would throw discs exactly the same. But until you have a way to test discs, the numbers will always be subjective.

 

[Karl]

Preface: typing this out using 1 finger on a phone sucks!

Just stuff to ponder....

Until certain parameters are 1) accepted and 2) quantified, trying to put lipstick on a pig isn't going to make it any prettier.

Speed
A terrible word to explain whatever they're trying to explain. Understand that ALL discs - throw as hard as possible - come out of a player's hand at the same 'speed.

Glide
Since no one has ever really come up with a good definition for this parameter (let alone quantify it) it's subjective at best and most probably useless as a stand alone parameter.

Perhaps if one were to somehow quantify the facets of a disc's edge's 'sharpness' (which may correlate to how fast a disc may resist losing ground speed) and that disc's ability (or lack thereof) to "stay afloat" [unscientific...just my term], you may come up with a 'distance potential' parameter. Understand that it won't be easy and still may require a sliding scale "fudge factor" that would need to account for various atmospheric conditions.

I believe what we're "looking for" when we talk all this numbers stuff is 1) distance potential and 2) what it looks like in flight getting there.

We all know of cases where a 'floaty 5 speed' disc consistently flies as far as a 'clunky 8 speed', so it's more than just the wing's thickness measurement (which at the present time COULD correlate to 'speed' but doesn't - due to each manufacturer "doing their own thing").

HSS and LSS (et al)
Totally based on the airspeed of the disc (not ground speed). Haven't thought about this one enough to comment...and I have a date to throw some discs!

(So someone else can take this ball and run with it....l

 

[elmexdela]

Ball golf does something similar, there is a "robot golfer" that is used to determine compression and distance. Disc golf could do it, if someone could create a machine that would throw discs exactly the same. But until you have a way to test discs, the numbers will always be subjective.

i nominate dgcr own tommy o

 

[autocrosscrx]

Could all disc manufactures be held to some reporting standard like tires? (Speed, tread ware, load rating) I realize that more tires are produced than discs and that with tires it was probably federally mandated, but it could be done.

Will it be done, probably not, there is no real incentive for the PDGA and all disc manufactures to work together on this.

Should it be done? I'm all for it. Especially if disc manufactures can figure out how to bake in differences in plastics, colors, and other factors. It would make buying discs much more consumer friendly.

At the end of the day, I'm not holding my breath. I'd die,

I'm not sure about speed or load rating, but the treadwear number is pretty much as arbitrary as the flight numbers we see on discs.

 

[jmdaire27]

I think Joe's universal flight chart is a bit more meaningful than just flight numbers. Instead of speed and glide, it's Power and Range; if you have more power, this'll fly further than a disc that requires less power. That and the exaggerated turn and fade numbers help paint a picture.

As other have said, numbers are more like guidelines, a basis of knowledge. Interpreting those numbers is up to each user. Thus, can't really standardize it. Watch reviews online to get an idea.

I know people like to hate on DD, but their "is this disc right for you" with an Am and Big arm testing the disc is much more useful than numbers alone.

You also have resources like infinite reviews and DGCR where you can find out what people think of discs.

 

[wims]

...

Glide
Since no one has ever really come up with a good definition for this parameter (let alone quantify it) it's subjective at best and most probably useless as a stand alone parameter.
...

Glide = lift/drag coefficient

 

[Karl]

Glide = lift/drag coefficient

While that's not the worse one I've ever seen, you'll get a lot of push back from a lot of knowledgeable people with that one AND that definition is certainly 'not accepted' as gospel in this sport / industry.

 

[txmxer]

Ultimately isn't speed fairly consistent with rim width?

Although it is poorly defined it's relatively consistent.

And experience tells manufactures certain shapes are more or less stable?