[Compare] Buzzz vs. Roc

[smyith]

The Buzzz / Wasp has the SAME WING +/- a bead and there are noticeably differences in stability.

Oh, we can't use that as an example because you claim it's "bs" ? :doh:

What a terrible argument. Probably the best example of a mold +/- a bead and you just throw it out as "bs".

1st run Buzzzes were flukey stable for the mold, obviously, since few other runs fly anything like it. And even with that extra fade, the 1st run was not as overstable as a Wasp.

notice i said "wasps of the same time". meaning the wasps when the 1st run buzzzes came out. have you ever thrown each brand new side by side?
next, i believe it was after the second run of buzzzes that they made an official buzzz mold and stopped using the modified wasp mold (i may be wrong on this tho). slight modifications or difference between the two molds is quite possible and probable.
1st run Buzzzes are not a fluke. I have plenty of Zs that are beef cake. I also have plenty of Wasps that are flippy right out of the box. just because your perception thinks that one discs fade harder than the other doesnt mean that is reality. i said a buzzz carries straighter (not straight, straighter ) for longer but still has the same fade. in other words the both get to the left just as much as the other, except the buzzz does it in a more drawn out fashion.

 

[smyith]

here is a chart that virtually everyone can agree on, correct?



why can't stability be used to compare discs on the scale? It's must easier and simpler to use stability as a measure from US to OS, instead of worrying about using 3 different comparative adjectives to describe discs in relation to one another.

EX: my comet is more stable than my magic, but less stable than my drone

based on your statement here
stable=overstable
is this really what you think?

happy reading
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94008

summary
stable really means straight but the industry use stable to mean resistance to negative turn, which means that a disc like the Viper is considered the "most stable"...idiotic yes but thats the way the industry has decided its goign to be....
/shrug

/end drift

 

[sneakytiki]

based on your statement here
stable=overstable
is this really what you think?

"stable" isn't a point on the line, it is the medium of that line. It is what is being measured. overstable = very high on the stability scale.

 

[NOStheBOSS]

"stable" isn't a point on the line, it is the medium of that line. It is what is being measured. overstable = very high on the stability scale.

exactly. it just confuses people when you say "my comet is more stable than my magic and my drone"

I've read all the arguments on this site and been quoted multiple dictionary definitions. still not going to change my opinion

 

[The Hammer]

Get this stability scale debate out of here. There is another thread already dedicated to that crap.

 

[The Hammer]

It doesn't make sense today, but considering where disc golf was at when the bead first debuted it would make a lot more sense. It slows the seasoning rate of baseline plastic considerably, allowing a disc to wear much more before becoming understable. This was a major issue in the '80s.

I am fully aware of this. But my thinking is that the bead was introduced to make the discs start out more o/s, allowing them to last longer. The more o/s they started out, the more shots they could perform across the spectrum of stability levels. I concede that this is merely a "gut feeling", without any facts that I can point to to back this up. Alas, I will have to ask Dave on PDGA.com. Stay tuned....

 

[Dan Ensor]

I can see a bead adding longevity to stability. I've heard that beating in has to do both with pieces missing from the disc (increased air resistance) and the wing being "tuned" or turned downward. Adding a bead could reduce the likelihood of the wing being turned down by adding a bend and some extra material also.

 

[Brodysseus]

It doesn't make sense today, but considering where disc golf was at when the bead first debuted it would make a lot more sense. It slows the seasoning rate of baseline plastic considerably, allowing a disc to wear much more before becoming understable. This was a major issue in the '80s.

Exactly. This was what I was trying to say about a Roc's durability and it having a "long life cycle."

I am fully aware of this. But my thinking is that the bead was introduced to make the discs start out more o/s, allowing them to last longer. The more o/s they started out, the more shots they could perform across the spectrum of stability levels. I concede that this is merely a "gut feeling", without any facts that I can point to to back this up. Alas, I will have to ask Dave on PDGA.com. Stay tuned....

I'm with Hammer on this. We seem to feel the same way about Rocs and their beads (as well as beads in general). However, I too have no concrete scientific data. All I have is my own experiences. I'm curious as to what Hammer finds out along these lines.

Also, I want to reiterate, again (for smyith), that I never stated that beads instantly make a disc overstable. All I ever said is that a Roc's bead contributes to where it falls on the stability scale. I also understand that it's notched wing is also part of the reason and never claimed otherwise.

 

[The Hammer]

I am fully aware of this. But my thinking is that the bead was introduced to make the discs start out more o/s, allowing them to last longer. The more o/s they started out, the more shots they could perform across the spectrum of stability levels. I concede that this is merely a "gut feeling", without any facts that I can point to to back this up. Alas, I will have to ask Dave on PDGA.com. Stay tuned....

This was Dave's response re. beads:

"The bead was developed to add durability. A secondary effect on some discs was to add a little high speed stability in some models. It was an original idea starting with the Classic Roc. We noticed the sharp bottom of the XD and Aviar tended to fray quickly and feel sharp so we added the bead to make the bottom less sharp and less fray prone. "

 

[Dan Ensor]

Nice; that's the exact information I was looking for. Now the only question is: can I overcome my hatred of beads?

 

[smyith]

This was Dave's response re. beads:

"The bead was developed to add durability. A secondary effect on some discs was to add a little high speed stability in some models. It was an original idea starting with the Classic Roc. We noticed the sharp bottom of the XD and Aviar tended to fray quickly and feel sharp so we added the bead to make the bottom less sharp and less fray prone. "

so in other words, the bead's main purpose is durability. and it may add stability to certain molds, not universally.

 

[The Hammer]

so in other words, the bead's main purpose is durability. and it may add stability to certain molds, not universally.

Sounds like a durability and comfort enhancement. Interesting considering most people's complaints about Rocs are that the bead makes it uncomfortable.

 

[Dan Ensor]

So, for you guys cycling rocs, do you stick to one type (sm, r, o)? Or do you grab an Ontario to speed up the beating process?

 

[Prodigium]

I'm new to cycling: I've tried sm, but wasn't impessed. Ranchos are easier to get and plenty stable so I'll stick with them.

 

[pr0phetx]

In all honesty the FLX Buzzz will not cycle. I have beat the living crap out of that disc and it flies exactly like it did when I first got it. Its just BARELY overstable, but you can pretty much make it do whatever you want with it. You can do a lot of nice hyzer lines or slow sweeping away shots that fade to the right or just keep it level and get it to glide nice and straight with the tiniest bit of fade at the extreme end. It might not hyzer flip as nice as the Roc but it seems to be more accurate in my opinion.

 

[Allurex]

I'm new to cycling: I've tried sm, but wasn't impessed. Ranchos are easier to get and plenty stable so I'll stick with them.

Also the fact that a Rancho will beat in just fine, eliminating the need for a Sanny or Ontario.

Rancho Rocs are the only mids I throw, and I can perfectly cover everything from super Overstable Champion USDGC to really beat DX.

 

[Dan Ensor]

In all honesty the FLX Buzzz will not cycle. I have beat the living crap out of that disc and it flies exactly like it did when I first got it. Its just BARELY overstable, but you can pretty much make it do whatever you want with it. You can do a lot of nice hyzer lines or slow sweeping away shots that fade to the right or just keep it level and get it to glide nice and straight with the tiniest bit of fade at the extreme end. It might not hyzer flip as nice as the Roc but it seems to be more accurate in my opinion.

X Buzzz cycles fine. Hard ESP cycles better than FLX, but still pretty slow.

 

[tu-f-o]

Buzzzes are for lay-up pansies. Rocs are for chain-seeking rockstars. Bogey or glory, no pars!

 

[Dan Ensor]

Buzzzes are for lay-up pansies. Rocs are for chain-seeking rockstars. Bogey or glory, no pars!

Trying to convince me to switch to the Buzzz?

 

[MikusRighteous]

I like both the buzzz and the roc. But mentally I rely on my buzzzes better. The first time I held a buzzz I instantly got that feeling like this is the disc