Applying Flight Testing to Ultimate Discs

[zrxchris]

I'm a part of the disc standards test group with USA Ultimate and I believe that flight charrsrisctics are a vital statistic that is missing from the certification process.

Although Ultimate discs are inherently low speed disc, why couldn't the same methodology be applied to determine flight characteristics ? Manufacturers don't test them as really they are supposed to be consistent and Beth team discs. But they probably have numbers just like a zephyr or similar throw and catch discs does.

I think having some imperial days to help back up the decisions as to what discs are recreational or championship level, you need some data.

Could you not get a pro group of ultimate players to test like a manufacturer of third party and determine the flight characteristsics of each disc?

 

[Grippenripp]

I'm a part of the disc standards test group with USA Ultimate and I believe that flight charrsrisctics are a vital statistic that is missing from the certification process.



Although Ultimate discs are inherently low speed disc, why couldn't the same methodology be applied to determine flight characteristics ? Manufacturers don't test them as really they are supposed to be consistent and Beth team discs. But they probably have numbers just like a zephyr or similar throw and catch discs does.



I think having some imperial days to help back up the decisions as to what discs are recreational or championship level, you need some data.



Could you not get a pro group of ultimate players to test like a manufacturer of third party and determine the flight characteristsics of each disc?

2/10/0/0 every ultimate disc ever.

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk

 

[notroman]

2/10/0/0 every ultimate disc ever.

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk

Ultrastars, Wham-Os, and Pulsars all fly different.

 

[Grippenripp]

Ultrastars, Wham-Os, and Pulsars all fly different.

Wham-O's don't count. What about the Aviator? Apple?

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk

 

[armiller]

By "every ultimate disc ever," we all know he meant Ultrastar.

I'd say 2/7/-2/0, but that's me.

As for the original post, no manufacturer has ever done any flight testing beyond (at most) throwing prototypes. Empirical data is irrelevant. If you figure out a way to standardize measurements and flight numbers, that could probably translate to disc golf and might be useful. Go for it!

It might be more useful to create a modified flight rating for ultimate discs that considers only glide and turn? I haven't thrown enough recently to know how the new molds differ from Ultrastars. Speed and Fade strike me as being slightly less relevant for ultimate. Maybe add something for wind or for hammers?

Could you not get a pro group of ultimate players to test like a manufacturer of third party and determine the flight characteristsics of each disc?

Edit: that would be the way to do it, and better than in DG.

 

[Grippenripp]

By "every ultimate disc ever," we all know he meant Ultrastar.

I'd say 2/7/-2/0, but that's me.

As for the original post, no manufacturer has ever done any flight testing beyond (at most) throwing prototypes. Empirical data is irrelevant. If you figure out a way to standardize measurements and flight numbers, that could probably translate to disc golf and might be useful. Go for it!

It might be more useful to create a modified flight rating for ultimate discs that considers only glide and turn? I haven't thrown enough recently to know how the new molds differ from Ultrastars. Speed and Fade strike me as being slightly less relevant for ultimate. Maybe add something for wind or for hammers?

It's like your in my head.

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk

 

[fish58320]

I would never dream of applying flight numbers because the variation between ultimate discs is so much smaller and the applications so varied, but a matrix of relative performance between ultimate molds would be useful. Stuff like plastic comfort, high & low-speed stability, glide, degree of IO required to pull successfully...

 

[Grippenripp]

2/10/0/0

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk

 

[zrxchris]

There are definitely differences in Ultimate discs.
On my last test discs sent to me from USAU, one was a similar mold to the ultrawtwr but was much easier to throw inside out RHFH. My son gained 20uds on his I/O flick and had improved spin.

Your right on the money m, the flight chawvyrttics are less since it's a low soeee disc. I think some flight testing would help generate more competition from manufacturers and get more people playing ultimate.

Thanks!

By "every ultimate disc ever," we all know he meant Ultrastar.

I'd say 2/7/-2/0, but that's me.

As for the original post, no manufacturer has ever done any flight testing beyond (at most) throwing prototypes. Empirical data is irrelevant. If you figure out a way to standardize measurements and flight numbers, that could probably translate to disc golf and might be useful. Go for it!

It might be more useful to create a modified flight rating for ultimate discs that considers only glide and turn? I haven't thrown enough recently to know how the new molds differ from Ultrastars. Speed and Fade strike me as being slightly less relevant for ultimate. Maybe add something for wind or for hammers?



Edit: that would be the way to do it, and better than in DG.

 

[zrxchris]

It might be more useful to create a modified flight rating for ultimate discs that considers only glide and turn? I haven't thrown enough recently to know how the new molds differ from Ultrastars. Speed and Fade strike me as being slightly less relevant for ultimate. Maybe add something for wind or for hammers?
DG.

So since the disc is low speed, do you think that makes flight testing easier or harder?

Since it's supposed to be a "Neutral" Disc could you say,

0. Throw disc at 50% power at 20 & 40 yd. distance to do one set each yo stationary and moving receiver, record turn and fade for disc for each release style.
1. Flat,
2. Hyzer (outside in) 25%
3. Anhyzer (inside out) 25%
4. Record the fade of the angle as distance approximation (inched, feet) and percentage.
(e.g. 10% Fade)


Ultimate discs can be thrown by top level players up to 120yds. They can be thrown with touch at half that distance easily by most club players. Seems like the are inherent characteristics of basic flight could be recorded and used to stimulate the marketplace for recreational & competitive discs.

Inbounds used to say they had like 13 tests. Are there lists of test criteria from manufacturers or 3rd party people?

Thanks

 

[armiller]

So since the disc is low speed, do you think that makes flight testing easier or harder?

I think it just makes them different. Speed is the first DG flight number and very relevant. I don't think it matters in ultimate unless there are speed differences.

Since it's supposed to be a "Neutral" Disc could you say,

0. Throw disc at 50% power at 20 & 40 yd. distance to do one set each yo stationary and moving receiver, record turn and fade for disc for each release style.
1. Flat,
2. Hyzer (outside in) 25%
3. Anhyzer (inside out) 25%
4. Record the fade of the angle as distance approximation (inched, feet) and percentage.
(e.g. 10% Fade)


Ultimate discs can be thrown by top level players up to 120yds. They can be thrown with touch at half that distance easily by most club players. Seems like the are inherent characteristics of basic flight could be recorded and used to stimulate the marketplace for recreational & competitive discs.

Inbounds used to say they had like 13 tests. Are there lists of test criteria from manufacturers or 3rd party people?

Thanks

I don't know about specific test details from manufacturers or Inbounds or anyone else. I've always just assumed flight numbers are assigned basically at random by designers. But discs with the same flight numbers often fly differently, and discs with different numbers can fly similarly. At the same time, disc golfers (e.g. people on here in the disc forums) will often use flight numbers to describe how a certain disc flies for them. The inherent problem with all of these things is that we're pretending to assign some kind of objective measurement, when the process has been subjective from the get-go and there really hasn't been any measuring.

All your ideas are good and hit on what any thrower would want to know. ULTIMATEly (pun semi-intended), any rating doesn't tell all the story. You have to get out there and throw each disc, whether in ultimate or disc golf, and figure out which flight works. The real purpose of the flight ratings system is just to try to make that subjective distance available to someone who hasn't thrown that particular disc and to compare it to discs they already know.

 

[chevis]

i haven't thrown a lot of ultimate discs (unless you count all the different ultrastars), 4 molds to be exact: ultrastar (the standard), aria, pulsar, wham-o. the wham-o is definatlly different & doesn't feel right or fly quite the same. the pulsar was more stable in both hss & lss, but not much compared to golf discs (maybe .183). the aria i thought flew exactly the same as the ultrastar, until it was pointed out to me on pulls that there was less fade; the aria plastic definitely feels better when wet. then there are the older ultrastars; not sure if discraft changed the mold or plastic, or if the plastic just changes with time, but older ones don't feel or fly quite the same; the difference is pretty minuet, but an experienced ultimate player can tell and will ask to change out the game disc if it is one of the older ones (some do with the aria too).
i have thrown a few superclass discs (zephyr, condor...), but wouldn't consider them ultimate discs.
so i think i have what it takes to tell you if you have a championship level disc: =ultrastar clone. if you wanna ship me some test discs, i'll be glad to throw them and tell you what i think.
To the OP ? any club team could probably test a disc and tell you the differences, but you would need a golfer/ultimate player to give you actual flight #s. i'm sure you know, but it's tough to get most (serious) ultimate players to play with anything other than an ultrastar.

 

[zrxchris]

Chevis,

Are you or have you ever been a USAU member? (Or UPA back in the day)

I think that getting more players who have experience with other disc sports would help to improve the flight group testing process. The disc standards committee is pretty much Ultimate players only, so I think that some new viewpoints from players with varied backgrounds would enhance the process.

USAU's Goal is two fold.
Get more discs approved for championship and recreational level. Thus increasing competition in the marketplace and getting better discs in people's hands earlier.

Here are the current standards,
https://www.usaultimate.org/discstandards/

To me the testing criteria is what needs the most work. (Section 4)

https://www.usaultimate.org/assets/1/AssetManager/DSWG002 - Disc Testing Criteria.doc

I think that factors such as high & low speed stability are missing, (like your reference to how much angle you have to put on a disc when you pull it to initiate play.

Send me a PM and I can see about getting you on the next round of testing.

I really would like to test all the current discs and try to figure out which models have the best potential of becoming championship models and getting more manufacturers involved in the process.

Thanks for your input!