Who is Using Tech Disc and is it Accurate?

[Nick Carroll]

anyone experimented with a wide rail and manipulating spin rates on purpose with the tech disc?

I have not, but my Tech Disc is being shipped by the end of this month, and I'll be sure to test that. Didn't even think to do that when I had a loaner for 5 days.

 

[John Kelly]

As winter approaches I'm trying to find better ways to practice indoors. It's time I got a proper net in the garage, and with that I wanted some a radar to get some real time feedback. It seems the Pocket Radar is what people use, but at $299 I'm wondering if a Tech Disc is a better investment. I'm wondering if anyone has input on pros/cons and whether or not it's accurate.

I don't love that it's stuck to a generic driver disc—I imagine that will affect it's longevity. I have yet to see a video of someone throwing this in a field to compare the results between the real flight and the sim.

I also wonder if a sub $100 radar with a big readout is "close enough" or whether it's just garbage.

What's your experience. Who has the best setup?

I have one and used it since 11-28-23. In one month, the Tech Disc changed everything for me. The simple answer: you get what you pay for IF you put the work in and fully understand the data. Overthrow Disc Golf covers it in-depth very well. I have a driver mold (it's a Force), and the puck sensor is calibrated to that mold.

RESULTS:

I've added a consistent 40 feet on max drives in real play on the course within one month. Even marginal throws go farther. I broke my process down below. The longest drives I've reached on flat, level ground over a pond (Shadow Pines, NY, hole #13 white tees) with a 168g domey Destroyer reached 380' which is pin-high. Not bad for an old fart like me!

COMPARING MY SKILLS:

I'm 56 years old, and I started playing end of 2022. I've studied backhand form in depth since I started (Overthrow DG is awesome), and I do field work with video almost weekly, plus putting. I brought my rating up from my first tournament of 798 to 850 by last August. At the end of the summer, I was maxing out at 300-310 on average before the tech disc work.

WHAT I LEARNED ABOUT MY THROWS:

1. I was nose-up about 100% of the time, but only around 3-4 degrees max. I would swear on my life I was not! You can't see nose-up that small. The optimal nose angle is around negative 3.0 to negative 4.0 degrees, but even getting to negative 0.5 degrees helped tremendously.
2. My launch angle was either zero degrees or negative, meaning I was throwing it into the ground. In reality, the nose-up problem saved me from this, so basically, I had a "not-very-noticeable" air bounce throw and my shots always went out eye-level all the way.
3. My speed was in the 51 to 53 range. I now have it in the 57 to 59 range.
4. My spin rate was less than 800 rpm on average. It is now in the 900's.
5. My hyzer angle was always too much hyzer, around 18 to 20 degrees. That explains why flippy discs worked so well for me. I now have an average 6-9 degree range.
6. Disc wobble for backhands is never a problem for me, luckily. I keep it under 3. Too much wobble makes it unstable.

WHAT I LEARNED USING TECH DISC:

• Be a student of form to make quick changes. But even if you're not, you can still tinker your way into improvements.
• It saves SO much time. Put down the camera because you can feel your way into making changes. If you understand form basics and essentials, then just keep trying stuff and watch what happens to the data. That's what I did. It made me go back and re-watch some stuff to go try.
• I visualize my throws just as if I'm on a course and not just "yeet" everything into a net. Otherwise, I learned nothing because I don't do that in real play... much.
• I found I got away from videoing myself because I was feeling my way into trying things to correct nose angle, launch angle, spin, etc. instead of trying to see it on video. I just needed to play around with trying different things.
  • Nose angle and launch angle: I always "poured the pitcher" with my wrist, and I have a solid power grip. I tried every grip anyway, but it turned out it was my pull-through with a low-leading elbow below my hand that was causing a release that kept the nose-up regardless.
  • Speed and Spin: I was reaching back too far, and didn't brace well. I learned to reach out and away from my chest with a looser arm and hand, disc drooping downward in my grip, and not think about reaching back at all and making sure I had a solid front heel plant before pulling through. Then I keep my elbow higher than my hand and try to slap the net with the back of my hand.

Bottom line, if you're serious about improvement, buy it! Hope this was helpful to somebody.

 

[RowingBoats]

I was nose-up about 100% of the time, but only around 3-4 degrees max. I would swear on my life I was not! You can't see nose-up that small. The optimal nose angle is around negative 3.0 to negative 4.0 degrees, but even getting to negative 0.5 degrees helped tremendously.

Now that you have improved, can you send it to me for a month? This is EXACTLY why I want one of these, and pretty much the only thing I want to look at.

I feel like I have corrected for any egregious nose-up issues, and now I cannot just look at my discs and tell the precise nose angle. I just want to grind this one facet of the swing out into a net using a TechDisc lol.

Good post though, I think that is exactly what this thread is hoping to get to.

 

[John Kelly]

Haha! So glad I could help!

I'm still learning. I also use it to warm up before I leave the house. Oh, and I forgot one thing about using the disc... the distance measured with the disc is of course calculated based on all of the other factors. Most reviewers immediately find it non-realistic and say to ignore it. Don't ignore it. I like it for showing how a change made on each throw affects the flight path and simulated distance. That's how it should be used, IMHO. Now in their defense, if I could duplicate a single throw exactly the same on the course to compare, the distance would be different due to wind, elevation, air temp, etc.

 

[dmoore1998]

I'm still learning. I also use it to warm up before I leave the house. Oh, and I forgot one thing about using the disc... the distance measured with the disc is of course calculated based on all of the other factors. Most reviewers immediately find it non-realistic and say to ignore it. Don't ignore it. I like it for showing how a change made on each throw affects the flight path and simulated distance. That's how it should be used, IMHO. Now in their defense, if I could duplicate a single throw exactly the same on the course to compare, the distance would be different due to wind, elevation, air temp, etc.

The problem though is that the simulator uses flight numbers, which we all know are largely made up. So a change made on one throw to the next only impacts it based on the flight numbers you're using in the simulator which may have no correlation at all to flight numbers on an actual disc.

For example, you might find that this throw you just made was 2mph faster than your previous. Depending on the disc characteristics...that might mean you throw further, or shorter, in the simulator. So in addition to throwing the exact same way on the course as you did in the simulator, you'd have to find a disc whose true flight characteristics matched the exact assumptions within the simulator.

 

[drk_evns]

The problem though is that the simulator uses flight numbers, which we all know are largely made up. So a change made on one throw to the next only impacts it based on the flight numbers you're using in the simulator which may have no correlation at all to flight numbers on an actual disc.

For example, you might find that this throw you just made was 2mph faster than your previous. Depending on the disc characteristics...that might mean you throw further, or shorter, in the simulator. So in addition to throwing the exact same way on the course as you did in the simulator, you'd have to find a disc whose true flight characteristics matched the exact assumptions within the simulator.

I think you're right that it doesn't translate to the real world directly—but I think the consistency (and unrealistic nature) in the simulator actually makes it more useful.

Stop thinking about it as a real world equivalent and start thinking of it as a separate data point or piece of feedback.

 

[dmoore1998]

I think you're right that it doesn't translate to the real world directly—but I think the consistency (and unrealistic nature) in the simulator actually makes it more useful.

Stop thinking about it as a real world equivalent and start thinking of it as a separate data point or piece of feedback.

What's a point of feedback that you think is useful from it?

 

[RowingBoats]

The problem though is that the simulator uses flight numbers, which we all know are largely made up. So a change made on one throw to the next only impacts it based on the flight numbers you're using in the simulator which may have no correlation at all to flight numbers on an actual disc.

For example, you might find that this throw you just made was 2mph faster than your previous. Depending on the disc characteristics...that might mean you throw further, or shorter, in the simulator. So in addition to throwing the exact same way on the course as you did in the simulator, you'd have to find a disc whose true flight characteristics matched the exact assumptions within the simulator.

I think the only value is correlating what changes do to flight paths in a generic sense. If the model stays static, it can possibly be valuable. Any attempt to pretend it is modeling what you should see when you throw actual discs from your bag is pretty silly imo.

One of the coolest but most insane aspects of this sport is how variable disc flights are. My experience would say it is impossible to even model expected flights from a single run of a single mold with extreme accuracy. I have had a single tree hit change a disc noticeably.

And that doesn't even get into modeling the plastimagnetic fields that trees are putting out, affecting disc flight.

 

[RowingBoats]

What's a point of feedback that you think is useful from it?

I think you already hit this one The point is to understand that it is NOT modeling what you should expect literally. The point is that it models which attributes of swing data impact which attributes of simulated flight, with a controlled static model of a particular, unchanging disc in a vacuum.

Don't we all basically do this with our bag? We have an expected model of what a disc will do with a certain type of swing. I know that I do not throw a different disc for every line. I throw lots of my discs in wildly different ways to exploit their characteristics. Learning how our swing can manipulate flight is a major skillset of this sport.

I don't mean this to over endorse the flight modeling that TechDisc shows. I still find that to be the least interesting thing it tries to accomplish. Learning to FEEL how to manipulate key swing parameters and then applying that to my bag is 99% of why I'd want it.

 

[dmoore1998]

I think you already hit this one The point is to understand that it is NOT modeling what you should expect literally. The point is that it models which attributes of swing data impact which attributes of simulated flight, with a controlled static model of a particular, unchanging disc in a vacuum.

It will model it if you leave the disc attributes consistent...I just don't see that as particularly valuable (beyond just being a fun toy to play with, which I think it is)

For example, I can go in and model a disc and just leave it the way it is with never changing it. I can then go in and throw it more nose up, and find that the simulator says I achieved more distance because of it. But depending on my arm speed, I might find that throwing it more nose up results in reduced distance. Same for any of the other data points. Depending on WHICH flight characteristics of a disc you choose (even if you leave it consistent) the results the simulator shows can be wildly different.

In general, it will show that nose up=fades earlier. more speed=more turn. higher launch angle=fades earlier. etc. I don't think we need the simulator to know that stuff though.

 

[drk_evns]

What's a point of feedback that you think is useful from it?

It removes the variables you can't control from the real world and allows you to focus on what you actually can do to the disc. If you throw it perfectly identical each time, the simulator will also be perfectly identical. It allows for accurate comparison between throws rather than an accurate representation of how it would fly in the real world. Changes are caused by you, and for that reason it's useful in the same way the other data points are.

It's almost like an average result or grade of your numbers, and for an intuitive learner that could be just as valuable as the other readings.

 

[RowingBoats]

In general, it will show that nose up=fades earlier. more speed=more turn. higher launch angle=fades earlier. etc. I don't think we need the simulator to know that stuff though.

Seems like a fair assessment that I agree with entirely lol

 

[drk_evns]

In general, it will show that nose up=fades earlier. more speed=more turn. higher launch angle=fades earlier. etc. I don't think we need the simulator to know that stuff though.

I think this isn't wrong, but it's also simplified. For example, more speed might not mean more turn if you have more spin. Tell GG that his launch angle is too high and he'd be decapitating worms... The sim is the combination of variables rather than the separation of them. A way to digest how the numbers interact.

You also can only say that you don't need a simulator to know that stuff because you already know it. That's not true for everyone.

 

[dmoore1998]

I think this isn't wrong, but it's also simplified. For example, more speed might not mean more turn if you have more spin. Tell GG that his launch angle is too high and he'd be decapitating worms... The sim is the combination of variables rather than the separation of them. A way to digest how the numbers interact.

You also can only say that you don't need a simulator to know that stuff because you already know it. That's not true for everyone.

But again that's all reliant on what disc characteristics you have in there. So if my speed increased 5mph and spin increased 100rpms...it might show more turn OR not depending on what disc characteristics I chose. The combination of the variables is completely reliant on the disc attributes to show the impact. If you keep the changes the same, you might have totally different results dependent upon disc attributes. So your takeaway of the impact of the differences is tied only to those hypothetical disc numbers.

So you're getting a way to digest the entirety of the data set of your throw metrics, but only as it relates to the hypothetical flight numbers you have assigned. That's probably worse (imo) because 2 people with the exact same throw 1 and throw 2 might be shown completely different changes to the flight because it's reliant on the disc characteristics they chose.

It's true, others might not know these things...but they don't need a simulator to understand it. And if they don't already understand simple concepts like these then the simulator is 100% going to mess them up by making them think throwing in undesirable ways can have desirable impacts. I'll go back to my defense of things like these features from before...my argument about why the flight simulator and the metrics are fine is because it seems so unlikely anyone without even the most basic understanding of disc golf isn't likely to buy one given the price point.

GG is a perfect example...toss his numbers into the flight simulator with some flight characteristics and it would look AWFUL. It would only look good if you got the flight numbers to mimic the disc he actually throws (that goes for any top pro...go plug a flippy disc into the simulator and then drop those top pros into the metrics...then watch as the simulator says that throwing slower, more nose up, etc is such a great thing for distance, because they threw TechDisc like it was an overstable Destroyer and you picked a flippy 7 speed for your characteristics).

 

[RowingBoats]

But again that's all reliant on what disc characteristics you have in there. So if my speed increased 5mph and spin increased 100rpms...it might show more turn OR not depending on what disc characteristics I chose. The combination of the variables is completely reliant on the disc attributes to show the impact. If you keep the changes the same, you might have totally different results dependent upon disc attributes. So your takeaway of the impact of the differences is tied only to those hypothetical disc numbers.

So you're getting a way to digest the entirety of the data set of your throw metrics, but only as it relates to the hypothetical flight numbers you have assigned. That's probably worse (imo) because 2 people with the exact same throw 1 and throw 2 might be shown completely different changes to the flight because it's reliant on the disc characteristics they chose.

It's true, others might not know these things...but they don't need a simulator to understand it. And if they don't already understand simple concepts like these then the simulator is 100% going to mess them up by making them think throwing in undesirable ways can have desirable impacts. I'll go back to my defense of things like these features from before...my argument about why the flight simulator and the metrics are fine is because it seems so unlikely anyone without even the most basic understanding of disc golf isn't likely to buy one given the price point.

GG is a perfect example...toss his numbers into the flight simulator with some flight characteristics and it would look AWFUL. It would only look good if you got the flight numbers to mimic the disc he actually throws (that goes for any top pro...go plug a flippy disc into the simulator and then drop those top pros into the metrics...then watch as the simulator says that throwing slower, more nose up, etc is such a great thing for distance, because they threw TechDisc like it was an overstable Destroyer and you picked a flippy 7 speed for your characteristics).

Isn't this slightly getting back into the 'some people will be dumb' argument though? If people are comparing simulator results and not controlling for the model selected...they are just doing things wrong lol.

Maybe I am missing something.

 

[dmoore1998]

Isn't this slightly getting back into the 'some people will be dumb' argument though? If people are comparing simulator results and not controlling for the model selected...they are just doing things wrong lol.

Maybe I am missing something.

I don't think so. I'm not arguing that the simulator is "bad" because people will be dumb when using it. I'm arguing that the specific way someone is suggesting it should be used is a poor way to use it.

 

[drk_evns]

I don't think so. I'm not arguing that the simulator is "bad" because people will be dumb when using it. I'm arguing that the specific way someone is suggesting it should be used is a poor way to use it.

I guess I'm arguing that the flight simulator is better than not having it. It's also better than having no feedback when throwing into a net.

Is a real field work session going to teach you more about how your discs fly? Of course.

Is the tech disc going to give you consistent feedback based on your form and nothing else? Yes. (I think there is value there)

I'm not saying it's better than another method, I'm saying it's another tool in your kit—a particularly useful one when all you've got is a garage and 4 months of snow.
_

I would also say that changing the flight numbers is essentially useless and once you find a reasonable representation of a neutral disc it would make sense to stick with that in the simulator.

 

[dmoore1998]

I guess I'm arguing that the flight simulator is better than not having it. It's also better than having no feedback when throwing into a net.

Is a real field work session going to teach you more about how your discs fly? Of course.

Is the tech disc going to give you consistent feedback based on your form and nothing else? Yes.

I'm not saying it's better than another method, I'm saying it's another tool in your kit—a particularly useful one when all you've got is a garage and 4 months of snow.
_

I would also say that changing the flight numbers is essentially useless and once you find a reasonable representation of a neutral disc it would make sense to stick with that in the simulator.

This would be very similar to my argument for why Tech Disc is good, and having the metrics is good. I just think the simulator provides no real value, given that you already have the metrics. I'm arguing that if you're using the simulator to understand the metrics, and the way the metrics impact disc flight, that's probably a bad thing because of the way that disc selection in the simulator changes what you'll see (and also because it likely means you'd be better off learning more about the metrics and what they mean rather than looking for the simulator to make it more digestible).

Maybe my view on it is skewed because I do understand the metrics, and upon first using the simulator the first thing it spit out at me was basically that doing a lot of dumb things would result in better distance (more nose up, etc). It's tough for me to imagine it being helpful under the guise that someone would look to the simulator to figure out what different metrics do to a throw (because I've seen it kick out so many results where improvements show a negative results and bad changes result in positive results).

My real hope for the simulator is that it gets better with changing the flight numbers. I can see a scenario where people really in-tune with their discs, the numbers, and the flight of them can input characteristics to get a better idea of "what would going from throwing a flippy 13 speed down to a flippy 9 speed do for me". Or something where the simulator can provide recommendations of rough flight numbers that closely align with max distance based on your current metrics. I like that it exists. I don't think it's valuable, but certainly if other people get perceived value out of it then that's a good thing for them.

 

[drk_evns]

I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I believe it provides value and will only get better.

I'd bet it can predict a flight more accurately than our own brains based on the data it spits out.

 

[Nick Carroll]

For what it's worth, I think the distance metric is the least important one from Tech Disc, followed closely by the simulations, but I think they both have some value. When I use the iPhone app I don't even see distance. But the way I used this device was to focus on one or two things in real time, and then look at the other data later. I think if you put in the work to set up the net and environment correctly, you can probably use all the metrics to best effect for adjustments. I do think that, just as many form elements are pretty individualized - including cues for correction - the Tech Disc is more useful on a per person basis, but probably best utilized by a coach who can learn a lot more from the results than any one person on their own (typically).