[Question] PDGA Approval for Rebranded Discs

[bcr123psu]

Super Stingray
King Cobra
Roc3
Mako3
Shark3

Innova has said that these are all different versions, different molds based on an existing disc. So if they fly differently, have different dimensions, etc. shouldn't they all have to get approved by the PDGA to be "street legal"?

Discuss, citing specific sources.

*paging Chuck Kennedy*

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Innova probably has more unapproved discs out on the courses than all other niche companies combined with discs that are not PDGA approved.

if any of the spec dimensions change, then the same disc model must be resubmitted.

For the most part I would say it doesn't REALLY matter as what the hell is the PDGA approval process anyway lol?! Innova would have been in trouble long ago for tweaking molds.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Enclosed are three samples of the above named disc model or variant. I have sent a
$300 check to PDGA Headquarters-- Testing fees are assessed at half the rate for manufacturers in the first calendar year they produce discs for PDGA approval. In the case of a disc variant (that is, one with a new name that retains its original name as an element within its new name; for example, the Ferret, an approved disc, is changed and renamed the Ferret Lite ), there is no testing or approval fee

As representative of the manufacturer named above, I attest that at least 500 discs will be made available commercially upon PDGA approval. I understand that this disc will not be permitted in PDGA World Championships (both professional and amateur) unless it is approved at least 30 days prior to the start of these events. This disc will be legal for all other PDGA-sanctioned events once it is approved and the testing fee is paid. If this disc fails to pass all PDGA tests, I understand that a new certification form and testing fee will be required when it is resubmitted for testing by the Technical Standards Committee.

from the application also.

 

[bcr123psu]

The "T3" is what sparked this. If it has a flatter top, then the dimensions would have changed, ergo a retest and a reapproval would be in order, no?

 

[Aim For The Chains]

I would say YES but imagine there is some ring around the rosey reason why they are not required to and get a little more "leeway" than your smaller companies.

A person just needs to take 2 recent gstar destoryers and see that though. You could have 2 different discs between the pop top and flat runs. but not sure PLH alone or where the measurements are made even can be something which they police though really?

I know Zam was one talking about PDGA measurements being "for fun" and something tells me he wasn't JUST meaning that sarcastically lol'

 

[curveball4]

The "T3" is what sparked this. If it has a flatter top, then the dimensions would have changed, ergo a retest and a reapproval would be in order, no?

Then would you have to re-test glow Teebirds? They are usually flatter. What about flat top DX Rhynos & Rocs? What about Eagle X vs L? Flat firebirds? This could go on a while!!

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Then would you have to re-test glow Teebirds? They are usually flatter. What about flat top DX Rhynos & Rocs? What about Eagle X vs L? Flat firebirds? This could go on a while!!

Yeah, exactly the point of the OP.

When I buy a new MVP disc I don't even have to think anymore about what run or where it came from or if its domey etc blah blah blah. What a pain in the ass for someone who just likes to play disc golf to have to hunt down and feel up every disc they are going to buy.

So innova is a headache for buyers why shouldn't it be just as big of one for the PDGA? maybe if they cant produce a consistent model then it shouldn't be approved in the first place.

Can I submit approval for X disc and then come out with Y?! :wall:

 

[tbird888]

If they didn't have to do it for the plus molds (which are different bottoms), why would they have to do it for a new "3" top? I get worn out pieces being replaced, but the 3 and plus molds are different, new mold pieces being sold as different models.

curve, the Eagles were certified separately. The L was certified as the CE Eagle.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

If they didn't have to do it for the plus molds (which are different bottoms), why would they have to do it for a new "3" top? I get worn out pieces being replaced, but the 3 and plus molds are different, new mold pieces being sold as different models.

curve, the Eagles were certified separately. The L was certified as the CE Eagle.

RIght. I know this horse has been beaten before when the various "3" models popped up as well as plus or "super" runs and so on. Some of the older discs by default have just been reapproved like you said RE:eagle but IMO the newer ones are more of a problem with the different tops/bottoms.

Always been one though-- TeeDevil :gross:

 

[tbird888]

RIght. I know this horse has been beaten before when the various "3" models popped up as well as plus or "super" runs and so on. Some of the older discs by default have just been reapproved like you said RE:eagle but IMO the newer ones are more of a problem with the different tops/bottoms.

Always been one though-- TeeDevil :gross:

It wouldn't bother me so much if Gateway hadn't been screwed over for the G9i plastic. It's obvious some things are more important to enforce than others, but Innova's been blatantly skirting the certification process for years.

 

[erock216]

Innova does what Innova wants.

 

[discspeed]

Innova likes to bully to get their way...In a small sport that has been traditionally COMPLETELY dependent on Innova's revenue to even exist, no person or entity has ever been in a position to stand up to them about anything (especially the PDGA). This will absolutely change at some point in the future as the other stakeholders in our sport grow in number and resources. I'm excited about that.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

It wouldn't bother me so much if Gateway hadn't been screwed over for the G9i plastic. It's obvious some things are more important to enforce than others, but Innova's been blatantly skirting the certification process for years.

Im not going to take the time to figure it out but I wonder how much $ the PDGA has lost out in $300 certification fees due to this.

Hell looks like latitude has done it when not needed yet innova doesn't when they SHOULD have?! ...wowowowow

Even just 10 discs is 3k which you cant tell me isn't something for the PDGA to think twice about. If a disc is retooled or whatever IMO it should go back to PDGA every time and a sample set of X amount should be there in different color/plastic to ensure consistency at least SOMEWHAT.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Innova likes to bully to get their way...In a small sport that has been traditionally COMPLETELY dependent on Innova's revenue to even exist, no person or entity has ever been in a position to stand up to them about anything (especially the PDGA). This will absolutely change at some point in the future as the other stakeholders in our sport grow in number and resources. I'm excited about that.

:clap::thmbup: Excited is a understatement- Innova always as appeared to be a "us vs them" type manufacture which will be their death in the long run IMO.

DG is too small to have everyone want a piece of the malnutrition pie' Companies need to understand they wont get big sponsorship for them or their players and its going to be DG as a whole- which will take all manufactures working together, to grow their businesses while then being able to compete in a thriving market.

 

[hempies]

Innova does what Innova wants.

Innova likes to bully to get their way...In a small sport that has been traditionally COMPLETELY dependent on Innova's revenue to even exist, no person or entity has ever been in a position to stand up to them about anything (especially the PDGA). This will absolutely change at some point in the future as the other stakeholders in our sport grow in number and resources. I'm excited about that.

This is why people whining about disc names and growing the sport are not seeing clearly IMO. At this point the PDGA is a joke, and they are the ones charged with enforcing the rules....but they can clearly be seen favoring one manufacturer or group of people...

 

[tbird888]

I'll admit that I really can't stand Innova for doing things like this, but the large majority of molds seem to be the ones that season usefully (for me) across their lifespans. I've tried so many discs from other companies that I loved when new that hit their sweet spot and were not at all what I needed. Lat seems to be the worst for this. Legacy seems to be the exception to this rule...for now.

 

[erock216]

Im not going to take the time to figure it out but I wonder how much $ the PDGA has lost out in $300 certification fees due to this.

Hell looks like latitude has done it when not needed yet innova doesn't when they SHOULD have?! ...wowowowow

Even just 10 discs is 3k which you cant tell me isn't something for the PDGA to think twice about. If a disc is retooled or whatever IMO it should go back to PDGA every time and a sample set of X amount should be there in different color/plastic to ensure consistency at least SOMEWHAT.

Its a hippy sport. Ain't nobody got time for that.

 

[discspeed]

Innova always as appeared to be a "us vs them" type manufacture which will be their death in the long run IMO.

I believe Innova feels disc golf is theirs, and they don't play nice with others. I've had friends that needed sponsorship for large events, and to get Innova's full involvement you have to do things totally their way and pretty much give the shaft to other potential sponsors...Or else you get some token sponsorship instead. I understand that it is business to act this way with your dealers (which I also know they totally do), but for the largest PDGA events?

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Too bad they didn't have better molding too as they could actually use their name and make champion level products for superior retailers not try to do it all'

 

[bcr123psu]

I'd like to have the PDGA chime in here (Chuck?). It would be one thing to send an email but I'd like to see, publicly, what the excuse is that these molds change in a non-trivial manner yet they don't have to be re-approved.