Best basket design and issues

[Guurn]

I found one thread on this subject but it didn't encompass what I needed so here goes.

I was wondering what basket people prefer as far as catching ability. I know that things like the yellow band on Discatcher Pros bother some people but other than those design elements, which is best. What failings bother you the most about current baskets?

For me I like Discatcher Pros best simply because I think they catch best. Bounce backs bother me, but blow throughs don't. I see blowing through the chains like putting in bolf too hard and skipping over the top of the hole or rimming out. I'm not sure I like their basket part best, but all of them have shortcomings that way. I actually like the old cone basket part, like the actual basket, not the cone. I don't like it when a basket has little loops that stick above the basket but it they are on the top it is ok.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I don't know if I referenced this survey in the other thread but it may be helpful for this topic:
http://www.pdga.com/pdga-documents/technical-standards/targets-member-survey

 

[SirRaph]

"Bogie bands" and such don't bother me. The target area is the same, outside of that, I don't really care.

What I do care about is the ability of the basket to catch a disc. The best baskets I've found are the Gateway and Arachnid (I think) baskets. Attaching the base of each chain to a ring instead of a the pole allows for a lot more up/down movement of the chains, absorbing the shock of impact, and seems to prevent spit-outs. Some of the baskets at High Bridge, WI have home-made rubber rings. They work way better than you'd think. They seem to absorb all the shock of the incoming putter/disc. I slammed a couple putts into them, only to watch them catch it with ninja-like silence. Really cool.

Shallow trays bother the crap out of me. As do baskets with light-duty chains. Hitting a putt dead nuts center and watching it bounce off the pole and spit right back at you is about a frustrating as it gets.

 

[oddjob]

whatever the ones are at the course in Florence, AL.

 

[discdoh]

I don't know if I referenced this survey in the other thread but it may be helpful for this topic:
http://www.pdga.com/pdga-documents/technical-standards/targets-member-survey

Tons of good info on that survey, but it is getting a little dated (over 3 years old). There are a few obvious omisssions (Gateway, Arroyo, King Pins, etc.). Maybe a new official DGCR survey with ALL of the basket manufacturers represented is in order. For that matter, does anyone have access to the current list of PDGA approved catching devices?

 

[bholy08]

Sounds weird but I like the innova skill shot...I like how the chains run straight from top to bottom, with another set of chains added in the middle it would be the best in my opinion

 

[Cgkdisc]

Same web location.
http://www.pdga.com/documents/pdga-approved-targets-pdf
I don't think the newer baskets have enough market penetration yet to matter in a survey. Until they are on a few hundred courses, not enough people will be able to have an opinion.

 

[Guurn]

Sounds weird but I like the innova skill shot...I like how the chains run straight from top to bottom, with another set of chains added in the middle it would be the best in my opinion

Yeah I know what you mean. I feel the same way about the Instep basket as long as you have added another ring of chains. It is interesting that cheap baskets can catch as well as some of the expensive ones with simple modifiations

 

[codyroberts18]

whatever the ones are at the course in Florence, AL.

This for sure! Too many spit outs on those baskets. They look cool but are not good for catching discs, which I thought was the object of a basket.

 

[MikePinchico]

I prefer the Mach III baskets. Sure you get spit outs if you hit weak side but that is part of the game. I hate the yellow chastity belt.

 

[superium]

The only baskets I've had consistant spit outs are the DGA Mach series. That inner/seperate ring for each set of chains is such a major design flaw yet they still havent eliminated it. Chainstar's are by far my favorite basket.

 

[Bultx1215]

Yellow Chastity belts...that's a good one. They are my nemesis as well. :wall:


When I designed my basket, I combined the Discatcher, minus the belt, and the 12 chain Mach. I just took what I liked about both and slapped it together to make one that is mine. The 9" deep basket holds them in and the chains on rings stop almost all discs. Think I've only had one or two slip through the chains. No biggee...as was said, that is just part of it. IMO, it would ruin the game if they went in every single time you simply touched the chains. Takes some of the chance and skill out of the equation.

 

[Bultx1215]

The only baskets I've had consistant spit outs are the DGA Mach series. That inner/seperate ring for each set of chains is such a major design flaw yet they still havent eliminated it. Chainstar's are by far my favorite basket.

Just curious....why are separate rings a flaw? Both will have equal stopping power since they move independently. If it was only one ring, the inner chains would not have any tension on them once the outer ring moved.

 

[Connor Jones]

Kingpin all day.

 

[thrembo]

The Gateway baskets, with their 3 sets of chains are very nice.

 

[Giv'r]

The Vortex basket looks really nice with the interlocking inner row of chains and no nubs on the basket.

 

[rocthecourse]

I don't like baskets with one chain ring on the bottom like Discraft's Chainstars.:thmbdown:

 

[Cgkdisc]

No nubs is a design flaw in my experience. Having played targets without nubs and having slight misses regularly "skeeball" away from the target, nubs do more good than harm.

 

[Guurn]

Don't we want there to be near misses? What misses would you find acceptable from a basket and what are design flaws?

 

[Cgkdisc]

It's a philosophical issue. It would seem that near misses that hit the target nearer to being good should be penalized less than misses that are more off target. I think nubs do a better job than no nubs meeting that philosophical goal.