[Question] PDGA Approval for Rebranded Discs

[tbird888]

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.

He and I went rounds over this in several threads over the years. Since the changes don't violate the established values in the approval doc, there's no need to have the mold certified, even though they're marketing a disc (with an existing name) as a different model with different flight ratings.

 

[mashnut]

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.

Chuck has said before that the dome isn't something measured in approving a disc, so something like the T3 that is flatter but has the same rim configuration isn't considered to be a different mold by the pdga. Same with things like the Eagle L and X, the curvature under the rim isn't important to any of the things they measure so the difference doesn't matter in the approval process.

That may very well be something they should fix about the approval process, but it's not something Innova is bullying their way through.

 

[bcr123psu]

OK, I can see that. What about the other "3" molds though? Those changed by more than just the dome.

 

[mashnut]

OK, I can see that. What about the other "3" molds though? Those changed by more than just the dome.

My guess is that they didn't change by enough to change any of the numbers on the approval list, if they're the same diameter and come out to the same rim configuration number then they're included. That or the PDGA just plain doesn't care, but I think that's been the case for discs from multiple companies.

 

[discspeed]

If it's a new top it's not just a matter of dome and the rim configuration will be different.

This is not a situation that is just about singling out Innova though. The approval process needs major revision, but I understand it's complicated. Simple molding inconsistencies can sometimes cause bigger differences in the measurements than changing out a mold piece does.

I say the PDGA should have regional representatives that can travel to the factories and measure the ACTUAL MOLDS rather than one of the first few discs it spits out (which are never going to be measuring the same as they will during a full production run).

 

[tbird888]

I say the PDGA should have regional representatives that can travel to the factories and measure the ACTUAL MOLDS rather than one of the first few discs it spits out (which are never going to be measuring the same as they will during a full production run).

This is an excellent idea. Measuring the mold itself would be far more effective.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

and then being able to compare samples at anytime/place against that mold is pretty sound IMO.

Any disc outside of allocated mold variance is then not PDGA legal.

 

[mashnut]

If it's a new top it's not just a matter of dome and the rim configuration will be different.

This is not a situation that is just about singling out Innova though. The approval process needs major revision, but I understand it's complicated. Simple molding inconsistencies can sometimes cause bigger differences in the measurements than changing out a mold piece does.

I say the PDGA should have regional representatives that can travel to the factories and measure the ACTUAL MOLDS rather than one of the first few discs it spits out (which are never going to be measuring the same as they will during a full production run).

I've seen lots of ideas like this to make the pdga approval process more strict and consistent, but no ideas on how to pay for it. You'd have to either raise dues, pushing a bunch of people away from the PDGA, or raise the fees on manufacturers and all the small ones would just stop bothering to get approval. It's a nice idea to beef up the process, but it's also kind of a silly problem to get upset about. If any of the modified molds were outside what would be approved it could be a real problem, but none of the manufacturers are doing that.

 

[Porthos]

Why does there need to be an approval in the first place? Couldn't the PDGA just set some limits (like weight, diameter, rim, etc...) on what makes a disc legal for tournament play? The Top 5 to 10 finishers at each tournament then have to have their discs verified upon completion, or if a complaint is made.

It seems overkill to approve every disc. Do golfers have to have every club or ball approved before using them?

 

[ian.]

great discussion i have been curious about this as well opcorn:

 

[discspeed]

Why does there need to be an approval in the first place? Couldn't the PDGA just set some limits (like weight, diameter, rim, etc...) on what makes a disc legal for tournament play? The Top 5 to 10 finishers at each tournament then have to have their discs verified upon completion, or if a complaint is made.

It seems overkill to approve every disc. Do golfers have to have every club or ball approved before using them?

To avoid potentially costing a dg company the cost of an entire run or more of discs.

 

[joecoin]

So, I looked at 518 disc golf discs, 111 of them were Innova brand. 35 of the 518 were NOT approved by the PDGA, 9 of those 35 were Innova.

So, Innova made around 20% of the 518. Around 7% of the 518 total were NOT PDGA approved, around 8% of the Innova discs were NOT PDGA approved.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[discspeed]

I've seen lots of ideas like this to make the pdga approval process more strict and consistent, but no ideas on how to pay for it. You'd have to either raise dues, pushing a bunch of people away from the PDGA, or raise the fees on manufacturers and all the small ones would just stop bothering to get approval. It's a nice idea to beef up the process, but it's also kind of a silly problem to get upset about. If any of the modified molds were outside what would be approved it could be a real problem, but none of the manufacturers are doing that.

Great post. It's up to the industry to fund this and keep things fair and legal. I would say they have good motivation for doing so. It just is going to take everyone(as in all the established manufacturers) getting to the table and becoming more involved in the PDGA. This is where I fear Innova's attitude could be problematic...Letting the increasing number of other major stakeholders in, doing what's best for the sport and not necessarily their business.

 

[mashnut]

Great post. It's up to the industry to fund this and keep things fair and legal. I would say they have good motivation for doing so. It just is going to take everyone(as in all the established manufacturers) getting to the table and becoming more involved in the PDGA. This is where I fear Innova's attitude could be problematic...Letting the increasing number of other major stakeholders in, doing what's best for the sport and not necessarily their business.

I think you'd run into problems on both ends. The small manufacturers might be skeptical of putting in money to a system that only affects a tiny fraction of the target market. Joe Schmoe Chucker doesn't care if his discs are PDGA approved, but he sure buys a lot of discs when he gets drunk and loses his. The PDGA doesn't have a whole lot of power to compel the manufacturers to do anything, and there's just not enough motivation for those companies to do it themselves.

 

[joecoin]

I think you'd run into problems on both ends. The small manufacturers might be skeptical of putting in money to a system that only affects a tiny fraction of the target market. Joe Schmoe Chucker doesn't care if his discs are PDGA approved, but he sure buys a lot of discs when he gets drunk and loses his. The PDGA doesn't have a whole lot of power to compel the manufacturers to do anything, and there's just not enough motivation for those companies to do it themselves.

I'll have you know I don't get drunk and I still lose just as many discs as a drunk does. (Disclaimer: All the discs I lose are PDGA approved.)

 

[imoser_me]

Did anyone notice that all of the previous 3 molds (Roc3, Leopard3, Shark3, etc.) showed up on the PDGA approved list on 8/29/17? I just noticed that and thought it was strange because these discs have been released for a long time. I also compared the specs and there are differences between the molds. The differences are small, but that is interesting considering they originally didn't have to be approved separately by the PDGA.

 

[ILUVSMGS18]

Did anyone notice that all of the previous 3 molds (Roc3, Leopard3, Shark3, etc.) showed up on the PDGA approved list on 8/29/17? I just noticed that and thought it was strange because these discs have been released for a long time. I also compared the specs and there are differences between the molds. The differences are small, but that is interesting considering they originally didn't have to be approved separately by the PDGA.

I suspect that the differences that you are seeing are the results of DX versus Champion plastic in terms of cooling. The only real changes I saw were in rim width and diameter which backs up my theory.