[Other] Disc brands you dislike

[Dr. Bogey]

I never got the Prodigy naming convention hate. While I don't usually care about the name of a disc, I agree that the Dynamic law and order theme is a turnoff-just doesn't work for disc sports, IMO.

Agreed. The Prodigy naming convention isn't totally without issues, but it's informative and easy to understand. I don't recall ever hearing the same criticism directed toward Discmania's naming convention.

I will say that while law enforcement is a little weird as a theme, many of DD's disc names are pretty good on their own. Breakout and Slammer, for example.

 

[Dr. Bogey]

Prodigy reworks a mold, and give no indication on the disc which one it is. At least they could have done what Millennium did and give version numbers.

If you design model is gonna be top down(waterfall method), then it takes a much greater amount of front end research, which is obvious that Prodigy did not do.
Innova and most of the others use a flexible design pattern(agile). It is very organic. They can make what needs to be made now, with what tech and market forces demand. It does make messy overlap at times though.
It looks like MVP, Vibram and Legacy hit the sweet spot between the two methods(Iterative). Some up front design but plenty of room to make changes as the companies grow.

All of that wall of text to say that if one is going to do waterfall planning, then it had better be done right, which is obvious that Prodigy did not do. Perhaps they are doing better now, I wouldn't know. I got such a bad taste in my mouth over the name change on the M1, I think, that I never want to have any of their discs in my bag. I might never be able to replace a disc that I liked.

Valid points, and exactly what I meant when I said that Prodigy's naming convention does have issues. The addition of version numbers or something would be an improvement. But I don't see how the situation is substantially different than what you find with other manufacturers, and the way people feel compelled to seek out gummy Champ zippertop 11x PFN domey San Marino patent# bottom-stamp Brinster Spiders and whatnot. The execution might need some help, but the basic concept behind Prodigy's naming convention is sound; you can tell instantly that an F7 is supposed to be an understable fairway driver.

 

[Halcón]

The execution might need some help, but the basic concept behind Prodigy's naming convention is sound; you can tell instantly that an F7 is supposed to be an understable fairway driver.

It's amazing how many times this needs to be repeated.

 

[SD86]

The execution might need some help, but the basic concept behind Prodigy's naming convention is sound; you can tell instantly that an F7 is supposed to be an understable fairway driver.

It's amazing how many times this needs to be repeated.

Totally agree with both of you. Why would anyone be upset with a consistent and logical naming system like that? Almost as bad as hating the concept of the four-number flight guide system... opcorn:

 

[wolfmandragon]

Valid points, and exactly what I meant when I said that Prodigy's naming convention does have issues. The addition of version numbers or something would be an improvement. But I don't see how the situation is substantially different than what you find with other manufacturers, and the way people feel compelled to seek out gummy Champ zippertop 11x PFN domey San Marino patent# bottom-stamp Brinster Spiders and whatnot. The execution might need some help, but the basic concept behind Prodigy's naming convention is sound; you can tell instantly that an F7 is supposed to be an understable fairway driver.

If I go buy an Envy or a Wizard or a Valkyrie, I know what mold I am getting. The plastic may not be the same, but it is the same disc.
If I go buy a Prodigy M-whatever, I don't know if the mold is even the same. This is the inherent flaw in this naming schema. Really bad plan.

 

[wolfmandragon]

Totally agree with both of you. Why would anyone be upset with a consistent and logical naming system like that? Almost as bad as hating the concept of the four-number flight guide system... opcorn:

I am not a big fan of it. No one uses the same metrics in rating their discs. Also, the rating is the same for different plastics even though the flight may be nothing alike. It is only useful inside of a single company and a single plastic.

Not very good for finding a disc at all.

What we need is a rating system based on speed of the disc vs rpm of the discs. Something similar to how golf balls are tested and rated.

 

[SD86]

If I go buy an Envy or a Wizard or a Valkyrie, I know what mold I am getting. The plastic may not be the same, but it is the same disc.
If I go buy a Prodigy M-whatever, I don't know if the mold is even the same. This is the inherent flaw in this naming schema. Really bad plan.

I don't understand this logic at all. First, there have been instances of mislabeled discs with names, such as some Sidewinders that were mislabeled. Having some animal name doesn't automatically prevent a disc from being mislabled. And if the Prodigy Discs says "F3", why should I not generally believe I have an F3 in my hand? There may be instances of mistakes, but I don't see why Prodigy's naming system causes more mold mislabels than any other system would.

 

[SD86]

I am not a big fan of it. No one uses the same metrics in rating their discs. Also, the rating is the same for different plastics even though the flight may be nothing alike. It is only useful inside of a single company and a single plastic.

Not very good for finding a disc at all.

What we need is a rating system based on speed of the disc vs rpm of the discs. Something similar to how golf balls are tested and rated.

Read what I posted: I said the concept of the four-number flight system is good. In practice, there are some issues, but in general, the system lets people know the ballpark they are in with that disc.

By way of contrast, I can't make heads nor tails of Discraft's numbering "system", which has caused me to avoid buying Discraft discs at the stores, because I have no idea what I'm looking at when I see their numbers.

Could there be a better system? Maybe. And no matter what system is used, there will be someone out there to gripe about it (which was the original point of my post).

 

[Kodachrome]

If I go buy an Envy or a Wizard or a Valkyrie, I know what mold I am getting. The plastic may not be the same, but it is the same disc.
If I go buy a Prodigy M-whatever, I don't know if the mold is even the same. This is the inherent flaw in this naming schema. Really bad plan.

This holds no water because you are associating mold issues with naming schemes. New vs old beast? Eagle L vs eagle x? 1.1 vs 1.4 OLF? 1st run volts and shocks? Destrulcans? New felons that fly like valkyries? New valkyries that fly like PD?

your complaint is that they changed a mold and continued calling it the same thing while shifting the old mold to a new name.

Some other companies didn't even have the decency to do that: they just keep calling different discs the same thing. And run to run variation can produce discs that may as well be different molds anyway, even if they're still technically the same.

So your issue really isn't with the method itself. Your issue is that they screwed it up like every other company.

Doesn't mean you like the way they do it, of course, or that you like the company itself due to their naming fiasco, which is the point od the topic. I agree that we need more objective ratings.

 

[DiscGolfShopping]

I can only say Vibran is the one brand I dislike

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Valid points; you can tell instantly that an F7 is supposed to be an understable fairway driver.

How?

 

[Puckstopper]

Read what I posted: I said the concept of the four-number flight system is good. In practice, there are some issues, but in general, the system lets people know the ballpark they are in with that disc.

Could there be a better system? Maybe. And no matter what system is used, there will be someone out there to gripe about it (which was the original point of my post).

Your last paragraph is spot on. Between molding inconsistencies and inconsistencies between how companies apply the 4 numbers there is no perfect system. Guides like Inbounds can help, but are also invalidated by inconsistent molding and not taking account differing arm speeds.

The closest we could come to a perfect system would require an Iron Byron style robot arm to throw discs repeatably. You could dial in 4 different speeds (rec-open) and measure hss vs lsf and final distance. This would have to be done by the PDGA at approval and approved discs would be required to carry the ratings.

Downsides to this utopian system: Cost of approval goes up to pay for the R&D on our Iron Climo, and the cost of testing. Manufacturers would have to submit multiple copies of each mold, at least several in each plastic, so again costs go up. All of which leads to paying more for discs. Even after all that, when a mold came out slightly different than the previous run it would invalidate the numbers being stamped on it anyway.

Now I would have no problem paying a little more for consistent discs. In fact that's one of the factors in my preferred brands. What I don't want to do is pay more for a rating system that's only slightly better than what is available now.

 

[PMantle]

How?

The 7.

 

[wolfmandragon]

Your last paragraph is spot on. Between molding inconsistencies and inconsistencies between how companies apply the 4 numbers there is no perfect system. Guides like Inbounds can help, but are also invalidated by inconsistent molding and not taking account differing arm speeds.

The closest we could come to a perfect system would require an Iron Byron style robot arm to throw discs repeatably. You could dial in 4 different speeds (rec-open) and measure hss vs lsf and final distance. This would have to be done by the PDGA at approval and approved discs would be required to carry the ratings.

Downsides to this utopian system: Cost of approval goes up to pay for the R&D on our Iron Climo, and the cost of testing. Manufacturers would have to submit multiple copies of each mold, at least several in each plastic, so again costs go up. All of which leads to paying more for discs. Even after all that, when a mold came out slightly different than the previous run it would invalidate the numbers being stamped on it anyway.

Now I would have no problem paying a little more for consistent discs. In fact that's one of the factors in my preferred brands. What I don't want to do is pay more for a rating system that's only slightly better than what is available now.

I am sorry, I did not make myself clear. I don't want an 'Iron Climo' to be part of the PDGA approval process. I was just making a point that the 4 number system is almost useless across brands anyway. One has to know how to interpret the numbers by manufacturer and plastic before the molding variables come in.

In ball golf, as far as I know, the PGA does not require spin vs speed testing. It is good marketing material for companies to show how the ball will fly according to loft and speed.

The Doppler radars, that even your local Dicks sporting goods store has in their club fitting department, should be able to measure speed, spin and location of the disc. Measure several different players to get a population of data across speed and spin, a little statistics to build data curves, and it would be mostly correct across all speed and spin rates.

I don't think, but I could be wrong, that one could measure nose angle with the current radar setups. That would be the one big advantage that an 'Iron Climo' would have over a population of throwers measured.

The first disk golf company to do this will have a great edge, in marketing, for hard core DG'ers.

 

[Streets]

How?

Blind faith in Prodigy's consistency...

 

[Aim For The Chains]

The 7.

Fade 7?

 

[mark996]

Fade 7?

I think you'd have to know their line up before knowing the F7 is their most understable fairway driver. F1 is hard overstable, F2 stable, F3 neutral, F5 neutral to understable, F7 is understable. I wouldn't have had any idea of that unless I googled it like I did, or had past knowledge of the discs they use. To the commoner aka non prodigy thrower, it's foreign.

 

[Kodachrome]

I think you'd have to know their line up before knowing the F7 is their most understable fairway driver. F1 is hard overstable, F2 stable, F3 neutral, F5 neutral to understable, F7 is understable. I wouldn't have had any idea of that unless I googled it like I did, or had past knowledge of the discs they use. To the commoner aka non prodigy thrower, it's foreign.

You literally only need to know that they rate their discs in order of overstable (1) to understable (7). F stands for fairway.

That's like a 3 second explanation.

Also





What the **** does a wombat fly like, pray tell?



I don't really like prodigy either, fwiw. I don't think their rating system is confusing, though.

 

[SD86]

What the **** does a wombat fly like, pray tell?

A real one, or the disc?

Your point is well taken: how can someone know how a disc flies by its name? One has to do the same research (if not more) to learn the names of Innova's discs as to learn Prodigy's naming convention...

 

[mark996]

I guess my argument was, at least on the Wombat it says on the disc what it "should" fly like...in theory...sort of. But the same argument can be made for Prodigy stuff in that unless you know what the numbers mean, you have no idea how that Wombat, real or disc, may fly based on a printed number on the flight plate.