[Question] Should the PDGA standardize flight ratings?

[Kenny53691]

you know, I don't trust their flight charts (I used to until very recently). How do they have flight ratings up months in advance for discs that having come out yet (not even their limited first runs)? Look at Westside's upcoming molds, inbounds had flights up for them a month ago. It almost seems like they went the route of www.flightanalyzer.com and just applied a % amount to the suggested flight ratings by the manufacturer. I don't honestly think they throw and test every disc themselves.
But that being said it is a nice site to compare the different flights through another persons eyes.

I use to use FlightAnalyzer a lot as well, but the more I use inbounds, the more I like it. I copied this from their site. Brian Rogers was in DGTR once and it explained the process.

The values for the Relative Stability Scale come from a total of 19 different flight charts and/or rating systems with as many as six different sources being applied to any one disc. Using multiple data sources has a smoothing effect on a disc flight path and eliminates outlier values caused by unnecessary bias, flight testing extremes, and minor rating errors. The values for each of the various data sources are then normalized, aggregated, and averaged to provide a comprehensive, relative picture of a disc's expected flight path.

 

[inbounds]

you know, I don't trust their flight charts (I used to until very recently). How do they have flight ratings up months in advance for discs that having come out yet (not even their limited first runs)? Look at Westside's upcoming molds, inbounds had flights up for them a month ago. It almost seems like they went the route of www.flightanalyzer.com and just applied a % amount to the suggested flight ratings by the manufacturer. I don't honestly think they throw and test every disc themselves.
But that being said it is a nice site to compare the different flights through another persons eyes.

We don't throw and test every disc as it isn't anywhere close to be financially feasible. Our testing team throws discs whenever we have convenient (e.g. cost effective) access and the tester ratings get factored into the overall rating, but the testing team data is not the only data source we pull from.

The key to our flight charts is that our values are averaged from multiple sources of data and rating systems, which provides a better approximation than any single data source. See the link below, specifically the last paragraph:

http://www.inboundsdiscgolf.com/content/?page_id=569#RSS

That said, when a disc is first released, the only flight ratings available are those provided by the manufacturer. So those are the values that we run through our algorithm* to determine the initial flight path. As additional sources of flight data become available and if our testers have access to the discs, then our flight charts are updated accordingly.

*Just a note that we're revising our algorithm and expect to release revised values for all discs in the next few weeks.

 

[inbounds]

Beat us to it Kenny53691 :thmbup:

 

[SteezeOG]

No to the question. I don't want the PDGA worrying about anything but approving molds for play and keeping track of tournaments and ratings. They do that and any extra work will probably overload them.


I like inbounds charts. At least the fact they give you a nice little flight picture. I don't really talk about how a disc flies until I toss it for myself and then get out with some others who throw different from me and then I get a good picture of what it's meant to do and will do for the average player.

 

[ZAMson]

I'd suggest some clear badging for predictive charts. I like inbounds, I don't like having to refute the incorrect pre-tested charts.

 

[sugarnot]

Again, I dont think the OP was meaning them actually regulating the numbers a disc is determined to be so much as the way in which it is conveyed to the customer thru a standardized system of:
speed
glide
turn
fade
or something of that nature instead of everyone just labeling however they want i.e. discraft's single number system, Innova and Lat/WS/DD 4 number system, Vibram's way, etc.

I agree there is no way that the PDGA would be able to or should verify the flight numbers a company puts on a disc, but the way the info is presented to the customer is doable.

 

[Kenny53691]

Beat us to it Kenny53691 :thmbup:

:hfive:
Thanks for chiming in and backing me up.

 

[mashnut]

Again, I dont think the OP was meaning them actually regulating the numbers a disc is determined to be so much as the way in which it is conveyed to the customer thru a standardized system of:
speed
glide
turn
fade
or something of that nature instead of everyone just labeling however they want i.e. discraft's single number system, Innova and Lat/WS/DD 4 number system, Vibram's way, etc.

I agree there is no way that the PDGA would be able to or should verify the flight numbers a company puts on a disc, but the way the info is presented to the customer is doable.

So they get to deal with the accusation that they're favoring which ever manufacturer's system it appears they've chosen as the standard (your example uses Innova's 4 number system) along with being the obvious scapegoat whenever anyone disagrees with a rating? Sounds like a lose lose for the PDGA.

 

[ThrowinGhost]

So they get to deal with the accusation that they're favoring which ever manufacturer's system it appears they've chosen as the standard (your example uses Innova's 4 number system) along with being the obvious scapegoat whenever anyone disagrees with a rating? Sounds like a lose lose for the PDGA.

Don't almost all of the major companies use Innova's four number system? (Besides discraft and DGA)

And to answer the original question, no. The PDGA has enough work to do as it is, dealing with flight ratings of discs would be too complicated and time consuming I think.

 

[mashnut]

If DGA is a major company, then so are vibram and MVP who use different flight rating systems completely.

 

[Savage Henry]

No. The PGA has a robot golf club to make sure white balls dont go too far but discs are totally different. If there was a disc that flew too far I would like to meet the woman who threw it.

 

[HiFi]

So they get to deal with the accusation that they're favoring which ever manufacturer's system it appears they've chosen as the standard (your example uses Innova's 4 number system) along with being the obvious scapegoat whenever anyone disagrees with a rating? Sounds like a lose lose for the PDGA.

Choosing a flight rating system won't necessarily cost other manufacturers who do not use the 4 number system more money beyond some adjustments to their stamps. They can hand in somewhat arbitrary numbers as it seems some companies do anyway.

Fact is if you want your discs legal in tournaments you already need them to be PDGA approved, so asking them to provide a couple more numbers for flight ratings wouldn't be all that difficult.

I would also like to add that many companies SHOULD want standardized numbers. In terms of marketing it would make it much easier to give the general public an idea of how your discs fly compared to other companies. The number one reason I stay away from smaller and less established companies is the fact that I really have no frame of reference compared to my DC and Innova discs.

Take MVP for instance. If someone watches a Mike C. vid and expects that disc to fly for them the way it does for him, there's a 90% chance that it won't. Now let that same person look at a 4 number system on what discs they have, then see a new disc and they will (hopefully) have a better idea of what it's going to do for them.

That was a longer post than I was planning on but I think a standardized system would be better for marketing and sales, benefiting not just the company but us as players if we look to branch out from our current set-ups.

 

[bradharris]

Choosing a flight rating system won't necessarily cost other manufacturers who do not use the 4 number system more money beyond some adjustments to their stamps. They can hand in somewhat arbitrary numbers as it seems some companies do anyway.

Flight numbers are all arbitrary to begin with. There is no objective way to measure them. So what's to stop a company from just submitting 1/1/1/1?

Fact is if you want your discs legal in tournaments you already need them to be PDGA approved, so asking them to provide a couple more numbers for flight ratings wouldn't be all that difficult.

The approval process involves a set of objective measurements done by the PDGA to ensure that the disc complies with the technical standards.

I would also like to add that many companies SHOULD want standardized numbers. In terms of marketing it would make it much easier to give the general public an idea of how your discs fly compared to other companies. The number one reason I stay away from smaller and less established companies is the fact that I really have no frame of reference compared to my DC and Innova discs.

That would require every company to apply flight numbers uniformly. That will never happen unless someone can come up with an accurate way to measure glide...

It's a double edged sword too. While it makes it easier for companies to draw consumers, it also makes it just as easy for those consumers to look to a new lineup. A company using a unique flight rating system hooks it's fan base in because they can't directly compare their favorite discs to another company without doing some extra research first.

 

[HiFi]

1. Flight numbers are all arbitrary to begin with. There is no objective way to measure them. So what's to stop a company from just submitting 1/1/1/1?

2. The approval process involves a set of objective measurements done by the PDGA to ensure that the disc complies with the technical standards.

3. That would require every company to apply flight numbers uniformly. That will never happen unless someone can come up with an accurate way to measure glide...

It's a double edged sword too. While it makes it easier for companies to draw consumers, it also makes it just as easy for those consumers to look to a new lineup. A company using a unique flight rating system hooks it's fan base in because they can't directly compare their favorite discs to another company without doing some extra research first.

1. Because they actually want people to have an accurate description of their product in order to sell it lol

2. I understand that and it wouldn't change, they would simply hand in 4 numbers along with it.

3. Yet we have multiple companies already using the same system. I don't think that they call each other, they do their best to accurately describe their discs.

I understand what you are saying in terms of finding a starting point in order to give companies and agree on that point.

 

[ThrowinGhost]

If DGA is a major company, then so are vibram and MVP who use different flight rating systems completely.

Ah I forgot about vibram. And what system does MVP use? Do they even have flight ratings? I guess I just see DGA a lot more than you guys since I'm in Monterey Bay where DGA headquarters is.

 

[bcr123psu]

MVP doesn't have quantitative flight ratings. They use a variable power-level based visual chart.

 

[smyith]

MVP doesn't have quantitative flight ratings. They use a variable power-level based visual chart.

im not the biggest fan of MVP but I do like their charts.

 

[rocthecourse]

im not the biggest fan of MVP but I do like their charts.

I'm the opposite, I like MVP's discs but think their flight charts are lame.

Then again I don't like flight charts, especially inbounds.

 

[Twistedhorse]

We don't throw and test every disc as it isn't anywhere close to be financially feasible. Our testing team throws discs whenever we have convenient (e.g. cost effective) access and the tester ratings get factored into the overall rating, but the testing team data is not the only data source we pull from.

The key to our flight charts is that our values are averaged from multiple sources of data and rating systems, which provides a better approximation than any single data source. See the link below, specifically the last paragraph:

http://www.inboundsdiscgolf.com/content/?page_id=569#RSS

That said, when a disc is first released, the only flight ratings available are those provided by the manufacturer. So those are the values that we run through our algorithm* to determine the initial flight path. As additional sources of flight data become available and if our testers have access to the discs, then our flight charts are updated accordingly.

*Just a note that we're revising our algorithm and expect to release revised values for all discs in the next few weeks.

Intresting!

 

[Timthenchant3r]

Flight numbers don't mean anything. They can give you the vaguest of an idea of how the manufacturer wants you to think the disc flies. Why is there an obsession with them?