The case for overstability

[Icarus]

Thesis Statement:

When throwing at a target that does not require some form of flex or anhyzer, an overstable disc (teebird, thunderbird, etc) is almost always preferred to an understable disc (leopard3, valkyrie, etc).

Why:

Take a 300 ft throw with a valkyrie (a disc I throw a good deal), and a thunderbird. With the same release angle, velocity, etc, the valkyrie will fly straight/turn slightly, then finish left. The thunderbird will fly straight, then finish left (rhbh). Now imagine they both are thrown such that they land at the exact same spot.

Now increase the power behind each throw by 10%. The thunderbird will fly 330 ft, but still finish about on the same line as the previous point, ending up ~ 30 ft from the original spot. The Valkyrie, on the other hand, will turn more to the right before fading, ending up both 30 feet beyond the previous point and an additional distance to the right due to the fade.

The same phenomenon can be applied to release angle - if both are released more on an anhyzer on the second shot, the valkyrie will still end up further away from the previous point.

All in all, overstable discs provide the most consistent accuracy due to fact that overstable discs are less susceptible to both velocity and angle release errors by the thrower.

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating throwing all overstables discs all of the time, or even learning disc golf with an overstable disc. I learned distance driving with a valkyrie, and I find it to be a highly versatile disc. However, it also tends to be a "touchier" disc - too much power and the disc will straighten out and fly too far past/right of the basket. An overthrown Teebird will just end up a little beyond the basket.

TLDR: Overstable discs are the preferred (tournament?) choice for many/most shot selections due to their ability to mitigate velocity and angle errors, providing the most consistent results.

 

[Karl]

Perhaps another way of looking at such is that normally an os disc only does one thing - it curves against the disc's spin, whereas a neutral / us disc first curves with THEN against the spin. It's like a fade in golf...you eliminate one side of the hole, whereas a straight shot can go left (ng), straight (g), or right (ng).

 

[slowplastic]

I can't remember where this graph was made from, but it shows how there's way less landing variation on hyzer lines than when you start introducing any turn. Not to mention if you mess up a bit or there's wind, an OS disc will pretty much ignore those factors. Plus on shorter shots, it lets you throw harder/normal instead of lightening up your power, so you can be more consistent.

 

[John Hansen]

What happens if you under power both discs?

 

[air show]

Overstable against the wind and understable with the wind... but then again I'm from Kansas.

 

[ru4por]

"Thesis Statement:

When throwing at a target that does not require some form of flex or anhyzer, an overstable disc (teebird, thunderbird, etc) is almost always preferred to an understable disc (leopard3, valkyrie, etc)."

I don't think you can have a thesis statement with almost always. I maintain that is is almost always a personal preference.

 

[SonicGuy]

Power hyzer adds some quantity of distance to the shot depending on how much fade you bake in. It also adds distance vertically as you need to bake in height to account for the dump. As a result you need a faster disc to throw the hyzer line than the straight line.

I would rather throw a Roc straight vs a teebird on a hyzer. I would rather throw a teebird straight vs an excal on a hyzer.

 

[Icarus]

ru4por: The "almost" was to cover other scenarios not listed as exceptions (i.e. if throwing at a target 150 ft away you wouldn't really care about a valk vs thunderbird - both would act nearly the same, or if the risk of running OB left is high you might go with an understable). Of course, it is always a matter of preference, but my thesis was that overstable discs will always produce more consistent results (i.e. be close to the target) than understable discs due to their ability to ignore small variations in angle, velocity, etc.

John Hansen: When severely under-powered (like the above case), both discs act very overstable. There would not be much difference between them.

Air Show: The wind is not a factor in my statement, given each shot is first released at the correct angle, velocity, etc to land in the same spot. Practical considerations (not enough room for the disc to flex due to a tight fairway, etc) obviously affect this.

 

[smarkquart]

I have been playing for over 13 years, and for the most part I have been against this philosophy simply because more stability/ overstability means more torque necessary to get a straight line, and more torque introduces elements like griplock, late releases, OAT, and such. I have always preferred stable to just slightly under stable discs because they require less power, which gives you more control of the release point, and if you misjudge the power, you are not as punished with a harsh or early fade.

However, slowly over the last two years I have been coming around. The Gold Line Pure is absolutely the best disc I have ever thrown, but I a man finding that the Suspect low and hard accomplishes almost the same result, and more consistently because I am removing the element of getting air under the Pure to get its distance. The same is true for my mids. My workhorse mid for the last three years has been the Verdict. It is not as overstable as it is advertised, but it is incredibly accurate for long straight shots when thrown with power. Recently I have been giving the Enforcer a try as a forehand thrower and a complement to my stable big boy drivers. The Banshee made the bag this winter; initially it was supposed to be a niche disc, for wind or hard dumps only, but it has been taking a lot of fairway shots recently because at power it is reliably straight, only dumping at the end.

 

[ToddL]

http://discpath.haxor.fi/

 

[Meillo]

http://discpath.haxor.fi/

Great tool. Thanks!

 

[John Hansen]

I was thinking along the lines of 10%. Like in your thesis.

 

[4hcgoods]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDUJzS7CQLU#t=3m07s
Everything your thesis states, with visuals.

 

[roggenb3]

US will still always be more fun.

 

[Major Tomahawk]

My teebird isn't overstable.

 

[SonicGuy]

http://discpath.haxor.fi/

Lol, NONE of those lines started on a hyzer.

 

[ru4por]

The variable that go into my decisions are pretty great. Distance to the pin, green surface (rocks, roots, grass dirt, mud), terrain of the green and around the pin (slope), fairway shape (trees/brush tight to the fairway/pin on either right or left), wind, my desired placement for any potential comeback putt, ceiling height, overall uphill or downhill shot, footing at release point (run up), snow....

So, if the conditional are set up ideal for a hyzer, that is indeed the best shot.

 

[ToddL]

Lol, NONE of those lines started on a hyzer.

Okay?

 

[takman]

All in all, overstable discs provide the most consistent accuracy due to fact that overstable discs are less susceptible to both velocity and angle release errors by the thrower.

My one gripe in your opening statement involves the line "most consistent accuracy". It presumes that everyone prefers a hyzer when given a wide open shot. I know people who can't throw a hyzer to save their life but can flex or anny to a target like a robot. I would prefer "most predictable".

 

[thesteveisnotdead]

I think if a hole allows for a clean hyzer with something overstable and you have the required power to reach the pin, that shot is the preferred shot. For many people, understability will give extra distance which can give a birdie look on a similar line as opposed to a par. For wooded courses or specific lines, you need understability to be able to minimize fade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk