[Compare] Comparative Disc Chart

[discallday]

Firstly, apologies if this thread already exists...I was unable to find it.

I like to refer to the following disc flight chart

http://www.inboundsdiscgolf.com/content/?page_id=431 (I recommend using matrix view)

but I recently realized what appear to be a few flaws with it. First, the Force (pretty new) that I currently have is slightly less stable than a Destroyer (little less new). Second, the two WarSpears that I own are slightly overstable, not really understable (which the chart says). Gateway's description confirms my impression instead of the chart's.

I realize that flight characteristics will vary with runs, plastics, weights, wear, etc., but I'd like to think that some fairly accurate disc grouping chart exists where an average (fairly new) disc of a given mold can be compared to averages of other molds. Has anybody found a better (more up-to-date, more accurate) chart than the one I linked to?

For the purposes of this thread, I kind of want to disregard flight ratings as described by the disc manufacturers, because even though most manufacturers use a four numbered rating system, these ratings still don't necessarily seem consistent. For example, my Westside Sword, and Sorceror both appeared to be way more flippy than their ratings indicated they should be (probably in the same group as a protege, according to the chart). Also, I've had this impression confirmed by a few other experienced golfers.

 

[Snap-it]

Firstly, apologies if this thread already exists...I was unable to find it.

I like to refer to the following disc flight chart

http://www.inboundsdiscgolf.com/content/?page_id=431 (I recommend using matrix view)

but I recently realized what appear to be a few flaws with it. First, the Force (pretty new) that I currently have is slightly less stable than a Destroyer (little less new). Second, the two WarSpears that I own are slightly overstable, not really understable (which the chart says). Gateway's description confirms my impression instead of the chart's.

I realize that flight characteristics will vary with runs, plastics, weights, wear, etc., but I'd like to think that some fairly accurate disc grouping chart exists where an average (fairly new) disc of a given mold can be compared to averages of other molds. Has anybody found a better (more up-to-date, more accurate) chart than the one I linked to?

For the purposes of this thread, I kind of want to disregard flight ratings as described by the disc manufacturers, because even though most manufacturers use a four numbered rating system, these ratings still don't necessarily seem consistent. For example, my Westside Sword, and Sorceror both appeared to be way more flippy than their ratings indicated they should be (probably in the same group as a protege, according to the chart). Also, I've had this impression confirmed by a few other experienced golfers.

Flawed...if you take it as a collective, it's probably the best currently out there. It also offers disc specs for every disc listed.

 

[FriedInTheDesert]

forget the charts, yes they are fun to look at

 

[Snap-it]

They're good to at least consult, especially on new releases.

What I like about 'Inbounds' is that it's a uniform rating system for every disc ever produced. And also their % of HSS/LSS on a 1-100 scale is nice...because anyone who seriously throws discs knows there's a big difference between -1 turn and -2 turn.

 

[hugheshilton]

If each model of disc was only made in one type of plastic AND if disc manufacturers didn't fiddle around and tweak their molds *ahem Innova* AND if disc molding was actually performed in a more controlled environment where more variables were being accounted so they molded up consistently AND if disc companies were big enough to buy consistent runs of plastic instead of just buying the leftovers from other companies AND if all players had clean form and consistent, flat releases THEN you could make accurate flight charts.

However, every one of the things I just mentioned is a variable that creates inconsistencies in how discs of the same mold fly. Flight charts SHOULD give you a good sort of rule of thumb or "average" of how a disc of a particular mold is supposed to fly. However, discs of the same mold across different runs in different plastics, even sometimes in different colors, will fly differently. When you've been playing and buying discs for a while and you learn the molds you really like in the plastics you like, then you start to be able to pick up a specimen within that mold and kind of see generally how it may fly based on dome, PLH, etc. Until then, enjoy buying lots of discs to try out and seeing how they fly for you. That is a lot of the fun when you first start playing.

 

[discallday]

They're good to at least consult, especially on new releases.

What I like about 'Inbounds' is that it's a uniform rating system for every disc ever produced. And also their % of HSS/LSS on a 1-100 scale is nice...because anyone who seriously throws discs knows there's a big difference between -1 turn and -2 turn.

Good points. Though I'm still waiting on their ratings for the DD evidence, WS sampo, and new Latitude Putter (all from 2015 Trilogy Challenge).

If each model of disc was only made in one type of plastic AND if disc manufacturers didn't fiddle around and tweak their molds *ahem Innova* AND if disc molding was actually performed in a more controlled environment where more variables were being accounted so they molded up consistently AND if disc companies were big enough to buy consistent runs of plastic instead of just buying the leftovers from other companies AND if all players had clean form and consistent, flat releases THEN you could make accurate flight charts.

However, every one of the things I just mentioned is a variable that creates inconsistencies in how discs of the same mold fly. Flight charts SHOULD give you a good sort of rule of thumb or "average" of how a disc of a particular mold is supposed to fly. However, discs of the same mold across different runs in different plastics, even sometimes in different colors, will fly differently. When you've been playing and buying discs for a while and you learn the molds you really like in the plastics you like, then you start to be able to pick up a specimen within that mold and kind of see generally how it may fly based on dome, PLH, etc. Until then, enjoy buying lots of discs to try out and seeing how they fly for you. That is a lot of the fun when you first start playing.

I think I mentioned most of the factors that you did in the OP, although I hadn't heard that different brands sold plastics back and forth. Can anybody else corroborate this?

Also, dunno if you noticed this, but just because I'm classified as a newbie on this site doesn't mean I haven't been playing for about twice the number of years that you have (a while) Though, I suppose it's possible that you weren't necessarily directing those words of wisdom at me

Let me know if you wanna play a round sometime, since I also live in Beaverton

 

[PMantle]

Firstly, apologies if this thread already exists...I was unable to find it.

I like to refer to the following disc flight chart

http://www.inboundsdiscgolf.com/content/?page_id=431 (I recommend using matrix view)

but I recently realized what appear to be a few flaws with it. First, the Force (pretty new) that I currently have is slightly less stable than a Destroyer (little less new).

That's unusual. Even in X, Forces are very overstable for me.

 

[zendragon]

Inbounds does have a good system. From what I remember, they get most of their numbers by actual testers of various power levels and give an average flight rating from all throwers. Not sure if there's a weighting system with more precedence going to advanced throwers or not.

The biggest inconsistency I have seen is on mostly newer molds. It seems with the plethora of new discs out, they have time to test less and less and so I think some are thrown up there just based on flight ratings the manufacturer gives and/or other sources on the internet. It's still a comprehensive chart, and better than the others I have seen though.

As a side note, I think you have a fluke Force. I would never use the words "less stable" to describe the Force.

Edit: There is also a post somewhere on these forums in the Vendor section. You can ask them questions there.

 

[Chazed]

Edit: There is also a post somewhere on these forums in the Vendor section. You can ask them questions there.

I've emailed them plenty of times and they always respond.

My preference is their matrix view because I can see the disc groupings as well as mouse-over to get the individual disc flight path. I discovered that you can skip clicking the "Matrix View" button and just go to www.inflightmatrix.com and you'll go right to the grid instead of the list.

 

[Pbmercil]

Inbounds is the best you're going to get. I have a paper universal flight chart from someone at the house.... discgolfcenter maybe? I don't remember. But in terms of online, inbounds is the best. They're not perfect by any stretch, but they do get a lot more things right then they get wrong.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Not sure how updated it currently is but the GGGT joes flight chart is legit if you can understand the numbers well (which is explained) and use them to your benefit.

Inbounds illustations can be pretty misleading IMO but very good generalization which shows differences quickly.

 

[Jammer89]

Like everyone else has said, there are a lot of variables. The thing I remember is the Inbounds flight path presented is based on a specific amount of power and presumably perfect form. For example, the Teebird is shown at 347 feet with 0% turn and 40% fade. If you don't throw with the right power to put the Teebird at 347 feet, the flight path is of course going to vary. So it is at best, a general guideline, not an accurate representation of how the disc will fly for everyone. This isn't really different than what everyone else has said, but simply my way of interpreting and answering the question. This may be easier for some to see though. Especially those who may not yet have a grasp on all the other variables mentioned in previous posts. I know it took me a while before I really understood how wind, arm speed, form, and everything else truly affected a discs flight. Some of those, I am still learning. Even with all that understanding, it's hard not to look at a flight chart and come up with an expectation, only to be disappointed when your new disc doesn't meet that expectation. But in all likelyhood, the difference probably has more to do with the individual player, rather than the inaccuracy of a flight chart. IMO all the flight charts are based on similar rules. It just depends on how, where, when, and how much of the data was collected when the chart was published.

 

[hugheshilton]

I think I mentioned most of the factors that you did in the OP, although I hadn't heard that different brands sold plastics back and forth. Can anybody else corroborate this?

Also, dunno if you noticed this, but just because I'm classified as a newbie on this site doesn't mean I haven't been playing for about twice the number of years that you have (a while) Though, I suppose it's possible that you weren't necessarily directing those words of wisdom at me

Let me know if you wanna play a round sometime, since I also live in Beaverton

Sorry, not trying to be condescending. I didn't read your original post closely enough obviously. Most people asking about better flight charts are newbies or people who haven't bought much plastic. I know people who have been playing twice as long as you have, but have only ever purchased a couple dozen discs over that period, so they still think that a really accurate flight chart might even be a possibility, which it just isn't due to all the variables (you'd have to have dozens of flight paths for each disc which would basically render it useless). It's hard to gauge someone's actual experience level just off of the numbers of years they've been playing.

In terms of the plastic, I wasn't saying that disc golf companies bought plastics from other disc golf companies. As far as I know, they don't. Rather, disc golf isn't a big enough business for even the biggest manufacturers to source their plastic directly from the plastic-makers and get consistent formulas. Rather, Innova and all the rest of them buy leftover plastic pellets from other, larger companies (like Rubbermaid and the like). They can get certain kinds of pellets which they mix to make what they want, but it's not always exactly the same formula. This is why different types of plastics are inconsistent over the years and between runs; their sources change and they have to reformulate with different sources. If I remember correctly, this is also why certain plastics such as CE were discontinued. All of what I'm relating here has been discussed on DGCR before, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I get the details wrong. I can't point you to which threads I read it in, but they're on here. I think the only principal exception to the plastics thing is MVP. I believe the father of the brothers who run it owns a plastics business, so they can source consistent plastic from the family business.

 

[discallday]

That's unusual. Even in X, Forces are very overstable for me.

Inbounds does have a good system. From what I remember, they get most of their numbers by actual testers of various power levels and give an average flight rating from all throwers.

I think you have a fluke Force. I would never use the words "less stable" to describe the Force.

That Force is an ESP. I've got a new Z Force I need to try out soon as a comparison.
Average flight rating -> thanks, that's reassuring.

I discovered that you can skip clicking the "Matrix View" button and just go to www.inflightmatrix.com and you'll go right to the grid instead of the list.

Useful.

Not sure how updated it currently is but the GGGT joes flight chart is legit if you can understand the numbers well (which is explained) and use them to your benefit.

Looks about as updated as the inbounds one, but includes a bit more info, including grouping discs by speed and behavior. I still like the Inbounds Matrix view though.

http://www.gottagogottathrow.com/media/wysiwyg/GGGT-FC-COLOR-060115.pdf

Like everyone else has said, there are a lot of variables. The thing I remember is the Inbounds flight path presented is based on a specific amount of power and presumably perfect form. For example, the Teebird is shown at 347 feet with 0% turn and 40% fade. If you don't throw with the right power to put the Teebird at 347 feet, the flight path is of course going to vary. So it is at best, a general guideline, not an accurate representation of how the disc will fly for everyone. This isn't really different than what everyone else has said, but simply my way of interpreting and answering the question. This may be easier for some to see though. Especially those who may not yet have a grasp on all the other variables mentioned in previous posts. I know it took me a while before I really understood how wind, arm speed, form, and everything else truly affected a discs flight. Some of those, I am still learning. Even with all that understanding, it's hard not to look at a flight chart and come up with an expectation, only to be disappointed when your new disc doesn't meet that expectation. But in all likelyhood, the difference probably has more to do with the individual player, rather than the inaccuracy of a flight chart. IMO all the flight charts are based on similar rules. It just depends on how, where, when, and how much of the data was collected when the chart was published.

Useful.

Sorry, not trying to be condescending. I didn't read your original post closely enough obviously. Most people asking about better flight charts are newbies or people who haven't bought much plastic.

In terms of the plastic, I wasn't saying that disc golf companies bought plastics from other disc golf companies. As far as I know, they don't. Rather, disc golf isn't a big enough business for even the biggest manufacturers to source their plastic directly from the plastic-makers and get consistent formulas. Rather, Innova and all the rest of them buy leftover plastic pellets from other, larger companies (like Rubbermaid and the like). They can get certain kinds of pellets which they mix to make what they want, but it's not always exactly the same formula. This is why different types of plastics are inconsistent over the years and between runs; their sources change and they have to reformulate with different sources. If I remember correctly, this is also why certain plastics such as CE were discontinued. All of what I'm relating here has been discussed on DGCR before, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I get the details wrong. I can't point you to which threads I read it in, but they're on here. I think the only principal exception to the plastics thing is MVP. I believe the father of the brothers who run it owns a plastics business, so they can source consistent plastic from the family business.

Fair enough. I've started branching out a bit more, recently. I think I do a pretty good job of keeping up with the new discs, relative to other players I talk to, but there's just so much plastic out there to keep straight (or turn over, hyzer skip, har har). And I wanted to know a good resource to use for referrals, myself.

I hadn't heard that about the plastic before, but it makes a good deal of sense.

 

[Snap-it]

That Force is an ESP. I've got a new Z Force I need to try out soon as a comparison.
Average flight rating -> thanks, that's reassuring.



Useful.



Looks about as updated as the inbounds one, but includes a bit more info, including grouping discs by speed and behavior. I still like the Inbounds Matrix view though.

http://www.gottagogottathrow.com/media/wysiwyg/GGGT-FC-COLOR-060115.pdf



Useful.



Fair enough. I've started branching out a bit more, recently. I think I do a pretty good job of keeping up with the new discs, relative to other players I talk to, but there's just so much plastic out there to keep straight (or turn over, hyzer skip, har har). And I wanted to know a good resource to use for referrals, myself.

I hadn't heard that about the plastic before, but it makes a good deal of sense.

There's no way around this unless they quadruple the size of the chart(s). Wouldn't that be fun!