Future of Innova in Question?

[Akuf]

The thing why Innova has the biggest piece of the disc market (in my opinion) is that they have had luck and well good discs. You have to admit it that because Ken Climo everyone who knew anything about competitions and the best players looked up to Climo. Most of the people who were introduced to this lovely sport were through people who often knew more about it like the best players, as Climo is sponsored by Innova they told them or showed that the best player(s) play with Innova and thus helping Innova grow its share of the market when people told to their friends about disc golf they told about innova and so on and so on. The next thing is also that when Innova had multi time world champion the idea of their discs being the best got greater and so many adopted that idea and forwarded it to new players and so on. Innova has many discs with "god like" status in disc market like aviars, rocs etc while for example discraft only has Buzz.

It will take time for other companies to make their share bigger and players telling about the discs are big part because new players then will more likely to choose their discs based on what was first recommended for them. In my opinion discraft is the only company that will challenge Innova as Doss is gaining more fame and it feels that discraft has started to show off their discs more.

 

[JHern]

...Innova has many discs with "god like" status in disc market like aviars, rocs etc while for example discraft only has Buzzz...

Cyclone, Magnet, Ultra-Star, ...? All major discs. The old school guys tell me that the Cyclone was the first disc ever produced that most people could learn to throw over 300 ft. This revolutionized the sport, changed course designs, etc..

Still, there is no question that Innova made a lot of good molds, and I think that's largely how they got to where they are now. Exploring the shapes that they were using (while holding the patent to prevent others from freely using them), they were simply picking the low-hanging fruit off the trees in the fresh and untapped forest they walked into. It was good marketing practice for them to associate themselves with the Champ, but I think this would not have worked unless they had a good thing going on underneath all the fluff.

It seems like people are waiting for a disc company to find the next untapped forest to walk into, and reap the next batch of low-hanging fruit and produce great molds. I can tell you that there are vast reservoirs of new approaches to disc design that could improve molds a great deal, but I'm not sure we'll see the same kinds of gains that we saw in the 1990s and 2000s.

Why is there more to MVPs concept? I talked to Dave Mac back around 04-05 when they started overloading and he went on an on about the gyro stuff and how it would improve flight. He also wanted to do durable wings for weight and longevity with baseline plates for grip.

I think re-distributing the weight more around the outside will only bring modest gains in gyro-stability. I should justify this remark. The moment of inertia of a uniform flat disc (all flight plate, no rim) is its mass times the square of the radius, divided by two. If all the weight were distributed on the very outside (all rim, no flight plate, like the aerobie ring) then the moment of inertia would be twice that (i.e., just mass times the square of the radius). Therefore, the moment of inertia of a disc can only change by a factor of two between the extremes. It means that, if the aerodynamic moments were the same, a purely ring disc would turn 2X more slowly than an all flight plate disc of the same mass. Real disc moment of inertia are a linear combination of the flight plate and rim moments. The flight plate ends at the inner edge of the rim, while the effective radius of the rim lies between the outer radius and inner radius (r_inner) of the rim (but closer to the inner rim). But these are close to the same radius, so the over all moment of inertia of a disc is: (m_fp/2+m_rim)*r_inner^2. (m_fp is the flight plate mass, m_rim is the rim mass.) It seems to me that, for the vast majority of golf molds in existence, the mass of the rim is already more than the mass of the flight plate, which means that the moment of inertia is already larger than 3/4*m*r_inner^2. The implication is that moment of inertia can only increase by less than 33% from present values if manufacturers try to distribute even more weight in the rim. Thus the characteristic rate of turn of a disc will slow down by less than 33%, even if they are very successful. This doesn't seem like a huge improvement. Indeed, when I put this amount of difference in the moment of inertia into my disc flight simulator, the change in flight pattern is less than 10 ft for a 300 ft throw.

So tell MVP and Dave Mac to stop wasting their time trying to make further gains in outer weight distribution. They're only going to realize gains of 5% or less. It is much less important than the shape of the disc.

 

[discspeed]

Indeed, when I put this amount of difference in the moment of inertia into my disc flight simulator, the change in flight pattern is less than 10 ft for a 300 ft throw.

I don't understand what this means. Change in flight pattern?

 

[Moseley]

So tell MVP and Dave Mac to stop wasting their time trying to make further gains in outer weight distribution. They're only going to realize gains of 5% or less. It is much less important than the shape of the disc. 8) :mrgreen:

Fixed
(a bit simple though, eg shapes may be approaching a treshold then ~5%+/- additional change potential would be quite a lot?)

 

[Triflusal]

Indeed, when I put this amount of difference in the moment of inertia into my disc flight simulator, the change in flight pattern is less than 10 ft for a 300 ft throw.

I don't understand what this means. Change in flight pattern?

probably has to do with the fact that I can throw an aviar as far as an ion

 

[Frank Delicious]

I am too dumb to understand most of jhern's post.

 

[DiscGolfTeeSigns.com]

I am too dumb to understand most of jhern's post.

the TLDR;....

physics, innovation, percentages, and other things that appeal to less than 1% of the buying market

also the between-the-lines for the other +99%
getting plastic in front of males 18-35 = past, present, and future of the disc golf industry
... it's no more complicated than that.

 

[TechnoHic1]

...Innova has many discs with "god like" status in disc market like aviars, rocs etc while for example discraft only has Buzzz...

Cyclone, Magnet, Ultra-Star, ...? All major discs. The old school guys tell me that the Cyclone was the first disc ever produced that most people could learn to throw over 300 ft. This revolutionized the sport, changed course designs, etc..

Still, there is no question that Innova made a lot of good molds, and I think that's largely how they got to where they are now. Exploring the shapes that they were using (while holding the patent to prevent others from freely using them), they were simply picking the low-hanging fruit off the trees in the fresh and untapped forest they walked into. It was good marketing practice for them to associate themselves with the Champ, but I think this would not have worked unless they had a good thing going on underneath all the fluff.

It seems like people are waiting for a disc company to find the next untapped forest to walk into, and reap the next batch of low-hanging fruit and produce great molds. I can tell you that there are vast reservoirs of new approaches to disc design that could improve molds a great deal, but I'm not sure we'll see the same kinds of gains that we saw in the 1990s and 2000s. .

Translation: The increase in performance of discs by design is diminished and will not be as sharp as the past 20 years

Why is there more to MVPs concept? I talked to Dave Mac back around 04-05 when they started overloading and he went on an on about the gyro stuff and how it would improve flight. He also wanted to do durable wings for weight and longevity with baseline plates for grip.

I think re-distributing the weight more around the outside will only bring modest gains in gyro-stability. I should justify this remark. The moment of inertia of a uniform flat disc (all flight plate, no rim) is its mass times the square of the radius, divided by two. If all the weight were distributed on the very outside (all rim, no flight plate, like the aerobie ring) then the moment of inertia would be twice that (i.e., just mass times the square of the radius). Therefore, the moment of inertia of a disc can only change by a factor of two between the extremes. It means that, if the aerodynamic moments were the same, a purely ring disc would turn 2X more slowly than an all flight plate disc of the same mass. Real disc moment of inertia are a linear combination of the flight plate and rim moments. The flight plate ends at the inner edge of the rim, while the effective radius of the rim lies between the outer radius and inner radius (r_inner) of the rim (but closer to the inner rim). But these are close to the same radius, so the over all moment of inertia of a disc is: (m_fp/2+m_rim)*r_inner^2. (m_fp is the flight plate mass, m_rim is the rim mass.) It seems to me that, for the vast majority of golf molds in existence, the mass of the rim is already more than the mass of the flight plate, which means that the moment of inertia is already larger than 3/4*m*r_inner^2. The implication is that moment of inertia can only increase by less than 33% from present values if manufacturers try to distribute even more weight in the rim. Thus the characteristic rate of turn of a disc will slow down by less than 33%, even if they are very successful. This doesn't seem like a huge improvement. Indeed, when I put this amount of difference in the moment of inertia into my disc flight simulator, the change in flight pattern is less than 10 ft for a 300 ft throw. .

Translation: The ratio of mass on the outer rim on an MVP disc to the center of the disc is not as high compared to something like an Aerobie ring which has no center at all making for the MVP discs to not gain but 10' on a 300' throw from a comparable disc.

So tell MVP and Dave Mac to stop wasting their time trying to make further gains in outer weight distribution. They're only going to realize gains of 5% or less. It is much less important than the shape of the disc.

I will take 5%

Hope I did an ok job with the translation. Have been lurking a while and find what jhern posts fascinating but I did take some liberty to shorten to the point here. In other words, not a direct translation.

 

[JHern]

...Hope I did an ok job with the translation...

Not really.

I don't understand what this means. Change in flight pattern?

Sorry, I didn't make that more clear. I was looking at the idea that increasing the disc's moment of inertia to its maximum possible value could yield an improvement in flight characteristics, like straighter flights, tighter lines, etc.. By "change in flight pattern" I meant that the side-to-side movement on a hyzer shot, or an S-shot, or any throw where the disc can have a lot of left-right movement. That's the only area where you'll notice a difference. It won't make the disc fly any further.

In any case, the answer is that the difference is very small, even if you used the maximum moment of inertia you could possibly have. Therefore, it isn't a big return to work on increasing the moment of inertia of the disc. The shape is much more important.

...physics, innovation, percentages, and other things that appeal to less than 1% of the buying market

also the between-the-lines for the other +99%
getting plastic in front of males 18-35 = past, present, and future of the disc golf industry
... it's no more complicated than that.

I disagree. One of the great marketing gimmicks of Innova is its flight rating system. You can summarize this as "we have 4 numbers instead of just 1, so we know what we're doing more than those other guys." The whole thing is a sham*(see note below), but it gives the impression that something innovative, technological, etc., is going on. That kind of thing has been successful in every market that ever existed.

*Note: Of course, we know that their rating system is subjective BS. There are no physical units, and no connection to physically measurable quantities. They give numbers like 4 or 5 or 6 or whatever, but what does that mean? 4 what? 5 what? They use terms like "speed" instead of "drag," terms like "glide" instead of "lift," etc.. We could do vastly better than that, and use real numbers. Vibram has tried to do better, with partial success (I like the number for straight flight), but they totally screwed up the description of turn (it isn't an angle, it is a rate of change of angle that is relevant).

 

[DiscGolfTeeSigns.com]

revised:

getting plastic and a relative flight chart in front of males 18-35 = past, present, and future of the disc golf industry
... it's no more complicated than that.

the chart's quality and rating system don't matter. i've seen people stare at the innova chart at great length -- they don't understand the ratings. it's the placement of the discs on the chart that they understand.

the average buyer is happy with a left or right arrow -- that's essentially all they can do with a disc... throw it wrong to the left or right, at best a huge lateral sweep that ends up straight ahead. still, they need the goddamn arrow or it's all over.

 

[keltik1]

ZAM is knockin' it out of the park ITT.

 

[DiscGolfTeeSigns.com]

ZAM is knockin' it out of the park ITT.

lolz. it's a weird thread.

don't get me wrong, i love love love thinking super deep about the state of flying disc on the planet earth. i'm glad so many kinds of people love disc, but to the serious disc golfer, the perspective is weighted toward that specific experience.

 

[GatewayDiscSports1]

Indeed, when I put this amount of difference in the moment of inertia into my disc flight simulator, the change in flight pattern is less than 10 ft for a 300 ft throw.

by pattern I'm guessing you mean distance,, correct?

I'm not quite sure your 3% increase in distance is correct.

A disc like the slayer made with Evolution polymer (TPU) that weighs 1.2 SG has a wing to flight plate ratio of 110g wing and 65g flight plate. ( about 1Gram per thousandths of an inch thickness is the rule for 1.2 density.

iI we use a material in the flight plate that weighs .89 specific gravity ( base polymers like TPO's or tpe's instead of 1.2 (TPU) it could weigh as low as 45g in the flight plate allowing us to use something like 1.4 sg in the rim for a 130g wing. ( even more if we broke of the wing into 2 parts ,,maybe the leading 1/4" could weigh 2.0)
I'm very confident that this increase in the gyroscopic distribution outward will allow a disc to spin much longer (EX yo yos with lead weighted perimeters can spin up to 5 times longer). The longer a disc spins the longer it will fly, but of course you are correct that is has to be combined with the proper shape ( something more along the lines of an Assassin/teebird/xl type shape).

I'm awfully surprised Innova or discraft isnt using surface technology to increase the distance their discs will fly.

By reducing the drag on a disc in the right place it will allow it to maintain its initial launch velocity longer,,, combine this with an increase of over 25% in wing to flight plate weight ratio,,,, would you bet a years salary on your flight simulators 3% increase in distance???

 

[JHern]

Indeed, when I put this amount of difference in the moment of inertia into my disc flight simulator, the change in flight pattern is less than 10 ft for a 300 ft throw.

by pattern I'm guessing you mean distance,, correct?

OK, I need to post the results directly, to be more clear, and you can see for yourself. "Flight pattern" isn't very clear. I'll choose a representative case, for a slightly over-stable disc that is released with 4 degrees of anhyzer, flat, and follows an S-curve flight for a typical 350' power throw. Every parameter of the throw was kept the same in both cases (including the total mass of the disc), except the moment of inertia was changed. The idea is to isolate only the contribution of mass distribution in the rim vs. the flight plate.

The control case is one in which the mass of the flight plate and rim are exactly the same, I'll call it the "standard moment of inertia" case. Then I ran another case where the moment of inertia was increased to its maximum value (weightless flight plate, all mass in the rim), which I'll call the "maximum moment of inertia" case. Here are the results, plotting the flight pattern as viewed from an overhead perspective (the throw begins at 0,0, and the numbers are distance in feet):

Standard Moment of Inertia (Total distance travelled=347'):

Maximum Moment of Inertia (Total distance travelled=355'):

I'm not quite sure your 3% increase in distance is correct.

The result in this case is...(355-347)/347= 2.3% change in distance. This part of the physics is very straightforward and is likely to be highly accurate. The most uncertain part of modeling disc flight is the aerodynamic forces and external moments acting due to interaction of the air and the disc, however, there is nothing controversial in how I do it and it does a very good job of reproducing disc flights. The contribution of mass and moment of inertia, on the other hand, are exact (unless the disc approaches the speed of light...but that is not relevant). So yes, I'm very confident in my assessment of the change in distance due to maxing out the moment of inertia: there is very little gained in doing so. And I use an over-stable type of disc because that is exactly the kind of disc that is limited in max distance by its tendency to hyzer out at lower speeds, and which a higher moment of inertia would slow the turn rate to keep it aloft longer. What the results seem to indicate is that the flight of a disc is limited more by ordinary drag than by loss of angular momentum.

That being said, you will notice that the disc flies more true on the line it is released when the moment of inertia is maxed out. In other words, the disc becomes straighter. In the maximum MOI case, the disc ends up roughly 15 ft to the right of where it ends up in the standard case.

So the real gains in maxing out the moment of inertia are straighter flights, not longer distance.

...would you bet a years salary on your flight simulators 3% increase in distance???

Is that a job offer?

 

[jubuttib]

So the real gains in maxing out the moment of inertia are straighter flights, not longer distance.

Did someone especially point out that the gyro design would increase distance noticeably? I've only seen discspeed mention it a couple of times, but didn't think he was that serious about it and never really gave it much credence.

From what I've seen the main point has always been to make the discs movements more gradual and enforce a straighter flight. For example the Vectors and GL Pains we compared were pretty much the same stability, but the rate at which they changed angle was noticeably different. Whenever the Pain turned or faded it was always a much more sudden than the gradual movements of the Vector.

 

[keltik1]

since we're talking flight patterns etc. aren't there times when you would want the more sudden change in flight? or am I that ignorant about how to shape a line?

I'll give you an example lets say I want to throw a turnover shot and dodge a tree. let's say I throw a Comet and it flips suddenly 10 feet before the tree and follows the turnover line I intended. now let's say I tried that with an Axis. If I read all this right I'm guessing it would not flip/turn in time and I'm smacking the tree. all things being relatively equal.

again I'm not the best player in the world.

 

[JHern]

So the real gains in maxing out the moment of inertia are straighter flights, not longer distance.

Did someone especially point out that the gyro design would increase distance noticeably? I've only seen discspeed mention it a couple of times, but didn't think he was that serious about it and never really gave it much credence.

...I'm very confident that this increase in the gyroscopic distribution outward will allow a disc to spin much longer (EX yo yos with lead weighted perimeters can spin up to 5 times longer). The longer a disc spins the longer it will fly...

From what I've seen the main point has always been to make the discs movements more gradual and enforce a straighter flight. For example the Vectors and GL Pains we compared were pretty much the same stability, but the rate at which they changed angle was noticeably different. Whenever the Pain turned or faded it was always a much more sudden than the gradual movements of the Vector.

Yes, and it does work to tighten lines, but like I was saying, it only works so much. There are exact limits to how far you can take the moment of inertia. The effect of putting all the mass on the outside is not is big as one might hope, even relative to unimpressive cases with equal mass distributions between flight plate and rim.

Think about the Buzzz or the Stalker. Their moment of inertia is not impressive. But they fly dead nuts straight because the design allows for an aerodynamic pitching moment that is very small. Things like beads are very helpful (e.g., Wizard).

since we're talking flight patterns etc. aren't there times when you would want the more sudden change in flight? ...say I want to throw a turnover shot and dodge a tree. let's say I throw a Comet and it flips suddenly 10 feet before the tree and follows the turnover line I intended. now let's say I tried that with an Axis. If I read all this right I'm guessing it would not flip/turn in time and I'm smacking the tree. all things being relatively equal....

Of course. Sometimes you want a disc that flips easily, sometimes you want a disc that holds the line.

 

[discspeed]

So the real gains in maxing out the moment of inertia are straighter flights, not longer distance.

Did someone especially point out that the gyro design would increase distance noticeably? I've only seen discspeed mention it a couple of times, but didn't think he was that serious about it and never really gave it much credence.

From what I've seen the main point has always been to make the discs movements more gradual and enforce a straighter flight. For example the Vectors and GL Pains we compared were pretty much the same stability, but the rate at which they changed angle was noticeably different. Whenever the Pain turned or faded it was always a much more sudden than the gradual movements of the Vector.

JHern pointed out something that I hadn't really thought of, which is that the gyro discs spin slower. This means they also turn slower, which is why they fade more gradually.

In terms of gyroscopics increasing distance, I believe there is a little advantage. It's really hard to test though because design is such a big influence as well. Just because an Ion goes farther for me than a Wizard does not simply mean it's all because of the gyro.

 

[discspeed]

since we're talking flight patterns etc. aren't there times when you would want the more sudden change in flight? or am I that ignorant about how to shape a line?

I'll give you an example lets say I want to throw a turnover shot and dodge a tree. let's say I throw a Comet and it flips suddenly 10 feet before the tree and follows the turnover line I intended. now let's say I tried that with an Axis. If I read all this right I'm guessing it would not flip/turn in time and I'm smacking the tree. all things being relatively equal.

again I'm not the best player in the world.

A Buzzz would be really tough to hit a shot like that as well. Currently MVP does not make an understable disc, which is what that shot requires.

 

[jubuttib]

JHern pointed out something that I hadn't really thought of, which is that the gyro discs spin slower. This means they also turn slower, which is why they fade more gradually.

If a disc spins slower it has a smaller moment of inertia than the same disc spinning faster. Spin stabilizes discs, a disc spinning faster (not slower) would turn and fade slower.