Lighting had on the discs after the rebrand from war planes had what the disc would do like #1--4 with the name like #3 Hookshot or #1 driver while on discs having the stamp having as close as they could make it look the flight of the top level male pro sponsored by Lighting with still Original disc Rubber Putter and just the disc name as the stamp most of the time and on later discs also saying floats in water 170 grams or under.
I am thinking about making it my goal to standardize flight numbers, and answer questions about discs that we don't 100% know. I am currently in college doing everything I can think of to build a foundation, learning, planning, meeting people, etc. If you can think of anything you want me to know, please leave me a comment!
For years I've been saying, we need a machine that launches discs in a wind tunnel and measure their characteristics based on speed of flight and direction of wind. They should be more accurate like speed to the tenth of a number based on rim width, glide based on volume between the flight plate and the bottom of the rim and dome of the disc, turn at multiple speeds based on intended flight velocity, which is based on the LENGTH OF TIME the disc is turning before trying to fade. With a more accurate turn, the disc wouldn't need a fade rating. Plastic difference should require a completely new test. people hate flight numbers because there IS NO STANDARD. There should be, and I've been laughed out of so many threads and comments for even suggesting there should be. If there was a science based approach on a universal flight system based on real, repeatable data, flight numbers would be awesome.
@@QactisX The problem with asking for real, repeatable data is that the discs themselves are not repeatable. Two 169g Firebirds made from the same plastic can be wildly different profiles; at that point, even the highest quality data for one is inapplicable to the other. Even if you did broad spectrum testing across profiles, you still end up guessing flight characteristics based on which test example is most similar to what you've grabbed from the shelf, and we're back to square one.
@@trev3971 it would be up to PDGA to enforce production standards that minimize variation to a certain target. If Trilogy and MVP can do it, everyone else can.
Actually they were using it long before 2009. That is just the year where they started adding it to the stamp artwork. Prior to that, Innova published their numbers online and on in-store print posters and such.
Yeah, I remember studying the promotional charts that had those numbers when I first started in like 2007. So it was clear the numbers were meant to allow people to navigate the large lineup Innova had to make decisions on which discs to buy by comparing them vs Innova products. Not to compare their products to other manufacturers.
Flight numbers should be based on a flat release, at a standardized speed for an average player in neutral wind conditions at sea level. There should be a throwing machine that the PDGA approves for accuracy. Manufactures then send their disc in to get certified flight numbers. Each print run of the disc should be put through the same test and flight numbers should be set independently for each and EVERY run, including all different weights and different plastics. As a customer, I’m tired of buying a disc that has been advertised to fly in a certain way only to find out I’ve wasted my money. Even though there’re a lot of variables that effect a disc flight, that doesn’t mean manufactures can’t agree on a starting base foundation upon which consumers can then use their best judgment on how it would fly for them under their specific variables. I’m fine even if this adds cost to a disc and all manufacturers started to make a “Pro Line” of disc. This is what this sport needs to reach the next level. Almost every other sport has entry-level equipment and advanced-level pro equipment.
That makes very little sense. What do you mean by standardized speed? Every disc thrown at say 50 MPH? If so that only show that you haven't understood how flight numbers (are supposed to) work at all. Every number after the speed rating (especially turn and fade) is in relation to the speed rating. A 12 speed disc with 3 in fade is not comparable at all to a 4 speed disc with 3 in fade as obviously a 12 speed thrown at the same (slow) speed as a 4 speed should be thrown at for a full flight would be MUCH more stable. Therefore you would need a standardized testing speed for each disc speed (i.e. 14 different testing speeds). So much for being able to use an "average player" to test discs.
@@johnny1873 The whole point of my post was to point out the DG industry needs a standardized base foundation on which to base flight numbers by standardizing controllable variables. Speed at which a disc is thrown is a controllable variable. Yup, you understood correctly “A standardized testing speed for each disc speed”. What those speeds are set at is up for debate by the industry. The most important issue is consensus across the industry & manufacturing reliability, so players have a guideline when purchasing a disc, it should be consistent to ensure relatability for the average consumer.
Thats "the original way" to do it by eg. Innova, Rim width - 10 mm = speed (Destroyer 22mm-10=12). But then there is the =K= Rask... ;D Triology uses the same system for speed, they have several discs that have been compared and "approved" by the consumers so they just put every new disc in a competition against them from what I get (Johannes @ L64° is one of the throwers getting to set numbers).
Flight numbers are a tool to assist you in PURCHASING discs so you will know how they fly relative to each other given the same speed rating. Dave dunipace is a combination mendeleev and Dr Dre in the sport of disc golf.
Yes, what you say here is key (what I tried to explain to someone above), all the other numbers are just in relation to that specific speed rating, you cannot compare a putter with 3 in fade with a distance driver with 3 in fade (for example), most people don't seem to get that fact.
I always look a flight numbers as a comparison within a manufacturer, so I should be able to tell how a disc fly compared to other discs by the same manufacturer. I think some manufacturers use the rim thickness to determine the speed. After that who knows.
For years I've been saying, we need a machine that launches discs in a wind tunnel and measure their characteristics based on speed of flight and direction of wind. They should be more accurate like speed to the tenth of a number based on rim width, glide based on volume between the flight plate and the bottom of the rim and dome of the disc, turn at multiple speeds based on intended flight velocity, which is based on the LENGTH OF TIME the disc is turning before trying to fade. With a more accurate turn, the disc wouldn't need a fade rating. Plastic difference should require a completely new test. people hate flight numbers because there IS NO STANDARD. There should be, and I've been laughed out of so many threads and comments for even suggesting there should be. If there was a science based approach on a universal flight system based on real, repeatable data, flight numbers would be awesome.
Flight numbers don't matter unless you are new to the sport or shopping a new brand. Even then, different runs of the same discs have different characteristic and can fly different depending on how you throw. The numbers are almost a suggestion and its up to you do dial in how they fly for your style.
Not that it's compliant with anything in the video, but I feel like the flight numbers make more sense if you only apply them within the same brand. Innova should have a noticable difference between turn 0 and turn -2 since they compare it against their own disks. If you find a brand where several flight numbers "feel" right, it's a decent chance that another disk from the same brand also fits the numbers for you. But, of course, it's all with a pinch of salt.
This is the way the sport currently is but not what is possible or what should be acceptable. Flight numbers should be based on a flat release, at a standardized speed for an average player in neutral wind conditions at sea level. There should be a throwing machine that the PDGA approves for accuracy. Manufactures then send their disc in to get certified flight numbers. Each print run of the disc should be put through the same test and flight numbers should be set independently for each and EVERY run, including all different weights and different plastics. As a customer, I’m tired of buying a disc that has been advertised to fly in a certain way only to find out I’ve wasted my money. It shouldn’t be a question of the consumer having to ‘dial in’ if the product bought will do what it’s advertised to do. Even though there’re a lot of variables that effect a disc flight, that doesn’t mean manufactures and PDGA can’t agree on a starting base foundation upon which consumers can then use their best judgment on how it would fly for them under their specific variables. I’m fine even if this adds cost to a disc and all manufacturers started to make a “Pro Line” of disc. This is what this sport needs to reach the next level. Almost every other sport has entry-level equipment and advanced-level pro equipment.
Manufacturers could submit their 3D CAD files to the PDGA along with sample discs when getting approved and the PDGA could assign flight numbers accordingly based on their metrics… what do you think. (Along with an NDA probably)
I actually see a world where you go to a disc golf shop and get do a "fitting" as you do in regular golf. You throw a few shots with into a net with the computer attached to the disc, give the "pro" a few ideas of what discs you like and dislike and then they could use the data collected as well as your personal preferences on how you like to throw and they could probably build you a fairly decent bag from that, or just individual discs. The tracking software used for golf is much more high tech than the computer you fit on a disc, so I dont even see it costing that much to implement into your local disc golf shop. I dont think you could get a good result of going from the data alone, but a knowledgable "pro" combined with the data could probably give you some good results.
Sounds like a fast track to making disc more expensive like ball golf. i just wanna go buy some new discs and have a relative idea of what im buying without spending an arm n a leg...
I think it were Seeker Disc Golf that did this in a store having mostly Triology and an even harder push on DD. Seems a load of people got discs that fit their game very nice looking at the numbers. Saw it on Insta.
@@L3TheRapper I mean… no one is forcing you to get fitted in this scenario. Its just something you could do to improve your chances of getting a good frisbee. I dont think the manufacturers would do this either, in this scenario its the physical retailers that would have this as an option.
When the numbers from disc to disc are close its hard to notice but i notice a big difference between a speed 7 vs 13, and likewise between a turn -5 and a 0.
Innova first started putting flight numbers on the discs in 2009. But flight numbers existed before this, just not stamped on the disc. I first started playing around 2006 and still have most of those discs [ some were lost, some fell apart over time]. They don't have flight numbers on the discs. Disc flight charts and brochures were available in disc golf stores. I still have one from that time period.
Discraft Luna definitely needs a flight number update. I don't know what they were smoking when they came up with those numbers but I bet it smelled like marketing
Innova and other brands who adopted the flight number system, as well as Discraft (who developed their stability rating) have tried to be accurate enough to give consumers a guide on what their discs do. While not perfect or consistent, due to brand differences and actual mold/plastic differences (among other things) they're better than nothing. That said, I would like to see the industry move forward and standardize together. Not sure the PDGA is up to the task of creating and enforcing a flight rating for everyone. And I'm not sure the industry or consumers would like the results, either.
I'm pretty certain there is a video where Dunipace was explaining that their flight number system was developed relative to other molds in that category (i.e. all mid-ranges against each other, all fairways against each other, all drivers against each other).
Ye, and now they are filling slots in their line-up based on handfeel with the same flight as the classics, its wild that they have all of the molds they got ! xD
Frankly I don't know how standardization would work, but yeah, the easy answer to what should the flight numbers be, is pretty much send it out to a ton of different skill levels and locations ask them how they think it flys and compare that to your actual flight experience with it and what the cfd might suggest.
I dont really think it would matter either. Its not like how the discs fly is a secret or anything. Nothing is gained by knowing the numbers in competitive disc golf.
While there would be a degree of arbitrariness in mapping formula to number, it would be very possible to connect flight numbers to measured aerodynamics. I think speed and glide would be the simplest. Speed, for example, could be tied to drag. Less drag = more speed. Speed 13 could mean a disc that loses 600 Joules/meter, with every additional 50 Joules dropping the speed by 1. You'd obviously need to map the numbers to something resembling current standards, but you get the idea. You could then calculate the speed that disc needs to be moving to generate 175g of lift, and base glide off of that, with lower speeds resulting in higher glide. Since current glides are relative to speed, you'd probably need to fudge together a chart based current usage. If the current 10 speeds range from generating 175g of lift at 40mph-60mph, you'd say 60mph = 1 glide, 50 = 4 glide, 40 = 7 glide, etc. Turn could then be based on clockwise torque on the disc at 175g lift speed, and fade would be the torque at say, half that speed. Standardize rotational speed as something middle of the bell curve tied to speed, like maybe 175g lift speed in mph * 20 rpm. Anchor discs to a spinning post in a wind tunnel and measure it empirically.
The problem with flight numbers is the appearance of standardization where there isn't any. Innova's flight numbers are a walled system designed to relate the discs to each other. In choosing to copy the same system, the other manufacturers invited direct comparisons where there shouldn't be any.
It's worse than that. They only are comparable to other discs of the same speed. And speed is very subjective. Contrary to what Dave D says, a Stingray and a Pig DO NOT fly at the same speed.
Like I said once before. You and I could be good friends..lol. Still just loving what you're doing all these years later! Probably shouldn't stop.. just keep going.
Soooo... based on all the data collected from the tech disc. Are/were you able to calculate or figure out different flight numbers based on comparison of other discs flights in the system?
1) Not their job. 2) If there were to be a company determining flight numbers, they could not be associated in any way with the PDGA, or any other regulating body. 3) There is a real chance the PDGA might not be around in a few years.
I've had 2 Champ Roadrunners that right out of the box flew like slightly beat in Firebirds.... and i currently have a 160 g. Firebird that flies like a perfectly beat in Teebird.... the most consistent flight in any condition. Flight numbers are basic guidlines
Great video. You are trying to tackle an impossible problem and I like your approach. Setting "standards" implies removing as many elements disc/person/context in your vernacular as possible. The ONE that can't be removed is person. Your DUNE user throws show that perfectly. With so much variability introduced just by the manufacturing process (material, color!, time, temp, ambient temp, etc. etc.) there's no way to come up with one set of numbers for each disc. Over time the manufacturers will create a standards committee (I've been part of several in other industries and it's incredibly difficult and boring) and choose something that all can agree on. Then they'll agree that the name should be changed to something like "basic/base/standard flight numbers". Coming back to my main point with so many variables introduced by the "person" there will never be precision in this area. Everyone will need to either understand how their own variables (speed/spin/wobble/launch angle/nose angle) affect the "standard flight numbers" or just BUY and TRY!
Would you be interested in designing and building a testing machine that allows to adjust speed, spin, angle to eliminate as many inconsistencies in someone’s throw to get more accuracy of the actual flight path? Of course test indoors to remove wind and then test in specific wind conditions as well. I’m down!!
Watching this I just thought out the first two numbers for most discs. Maybe not so much putters. Just think like a destroyer is 12 5. 12mm rim 5mm suppose to be to the top of the dome? Just a thought
I confess, I use the “don’t overthink it, it’s a general rating” approach. I assume speed is a function of the rim width, and the rest is up to me to figure out how the disc flies for me.
MVP and Simon are working on a robot😀. The tech disc is nice but way too pricey for a normal user. It is cool you are using that data though. Oh I am at 6900ft
I have never taken the time to learn about the flight numbers. I have always just used the stability rating (5th # on discraft discs) as a general idea of how the disc should fly since that's what I mostly throw.
I read somewhere that flight ratings refer to the disc once it’s beat in? I don’t think I heard Jesse say anything about that, but I believe it’s possible, and if so seems like the wrong way to go about it. Ratings should be based off how the disc will fly out of the box. Anyone who plays will know that discs beat in and change with time and use. Am I missing something, or did the Internet provide me some incorrect data 🫠
Ive seen videos of that tech tool vs an actual radar gun and its wrong on speed which means its wrong on everything else. Not to mention attaching an added weight to what you hope is the middle of a disc changes the flight of that disc
What if you made an equation for each flight number... the variables being the player's arm speed, spin rate, and wobble. Then you could see exactly how a disc will fly for you. You could just have a thing on your website where players can input their stats and it produces the flight numbers.
The good thing about tech disc is the sample size will continue to grow. I want one or at least to try one. Have no idea how fast or what rpm I might be doing.
I think it would be rather difficult to standardize such complex amalgamations of different factors. Speed, spin, angle of attack, disc shape. Even pros throw discs in different ways. A distance driver thrown high with lot of nose down or low with less nose down could end at a similar distance but wildly different shot shapes. Honestly I kind of like MVPs take on it the most. Just draw a few squiggly lines for how a disc might fly at different launch speeds. Then once you try one of their discs you have some idea. The number system has devolved into pure marketing hype. Innova It and Leopard3 have wildly different flights. Trilogy has probably 25 "14-speed"molds with rim widths between 21-25mm. Even after throwing ten of those molds you don't know what you are getting with the next one. Glide rating is nearly useless, if you have two discs with same turn and different glide, the one with lower glide is probably more stable overall. Fade again doesn't mean anything these days, especially for putters.
There can never be a unified, objective set of flight rating numbers. Because you can't get independent manufacturers to ALL have the exact same (expensive!) robot throwing machine, which can be deployed inside a covered stadium, in order to test fly discs. Nor can you define a set of parameters which are more useful than the existing ones, or which can be applied to discs in different places and different climatic conditions at different times, and altitudes. Plus, because of differential cooling differences between plastics, it is literally impossible to make high speed golf discs exactly the same. And so, by necessity, the flight numbers can only ever be approximate. And this (despite the claims) is a GOOD THING. it is essential for the sport, that newcomers to the game rely upon the expertise and knowledge of retailers and other experts. And so in my retail store, I always say something like this to my new players, "Until you have learned what the flight numbers describe, you can rely on me to put the most appropriate discs in your hands, and I guarantee that if you allow me to do this for you, you will progress at the fastest possible rate. And if I tell you that a disc will do X for you, and you find that it does Y, then you bring it back to me, and I will give you a disc that does X, for free." In this way, I develop a relationship with my customers, and I can direct them to the 200,000 words of instructional articles at my blog site: www.vorticasport.com/blog
Flight numbers are relevant within their own brand and within their own speed bracket. If you use flight numbers correctly they do exactly their job in helping you identify how a disc is supposed to be used. It doesn't matter that all 5/5/-2/1 discs on the market don't fly exactly the same. What you should be taking away from those numbers is that it's that brands hyzerflip mid.
Innova had the flight numbers since 2000 but did not use them on the discs until 2009 and a few other companies may have used the same system including Gateway I know was one. The Discraft had its own single number system on the discs that never took off as this only assessed the stability a disc would have but had it had the overall turn and speed on the disc it might have taken off as the other flight system. This is the true how we have come to having flight numbers on the discs.
What should happen is using the crowd sourcing of flight numbers like on infinite discs. But I think is a great idea is you get a store that has one of those discs and you get several regular players through this to get their numbers and averages, and then you get a list of discs from them that they would say are their go-to that fit their style. Which would be a great launching point for anyone else who then comes in the store and has similar speed angle and whatnot. I think this is important because right now you're going to have a domination towards the bigger brands because they're going to have a bigger pool of disc to reference against. This would have a good opportunity for those to find desks that aren't mainstream and promote some of the smaller brands.
I actually find the Infinite Discs reviewer flight numbers to be generally pretty worthless. Most reviewers stick to the manufacturer numbers, or hover around there, so it ends up only nudging the number 0.1 in a given direction.
The temperature is way more important to keep runs the same shape, also humidity will affect discs since the plastic used in "Premium" discs can have different amount of actual water "infused" depending on the weather where you throw and store them, it changes, its called... google: hygroscopic ^_^
I'm surprised you didn't talk about why different runs of the same mold have different stability. That's the part that I think is broken. It's a roll of the dice on what you're going to get these days... Some manufactures do this better than others IMO, but as a consumer, nothing is more frustrating than finding a new mold that you love, losing it right away, buying a new one and having it fly COMPLETELY different from the one you fell in love with.
Tech disc got so far ahead right now! Discmania had some collab with a similar thing on the way as well, I love it, cheaper than getting several other measuring devices of different kinds =)
I reached out to GameProofer twice, earlier this year - and they never responded. I reached out to TechDisc as soon as I found out about them, and they replied within a half hour. That's a big difference in my eyes.
@@tech_disc Seriously, you guys are killing it. I appreciate that you're not only willing to bring the tech out - but interact with the people who can promote it and use it to advance the industry.
A topic you have not covered is Moment Of Inertia (MOI) and how the techdisc sensor affects it. I emailed techdisc but have not heard back from them. The techdisc device comes already mounted on a disc. I ASSUME that they have it adjusted to negate it's affect on MOI but I've yet to have that verified. To illustrate your point, the PDGA does not list flight numbers in their certified disc database. They list just the dimensional and mechanical specs for each disc. I take this to mean that they, the PDGA, doesn't want to be held accountable for the flight numbers. Accountability is why the flight numbers exist as they are. Manufacturers don't want to be held accountable for specific disc performance so instead of publishing actual specs, the publish these subjective numbers and flight curves. However, MVP has made a market by pushing their increased MOI as a design feature that increases their performance on their "GYRO" line of discs. Even though their MOI is just slightly more than a single mold disc. So, anyway, I would really like to know if techdisc somehow skews the numbers to compensate for the decrease in MOI of their techdisc equipped discs.
Gyro is trade dress and nothing appreciably more. Granted, it's *brilliant* trade dress that can be identified instantly from a significant distance, but still just trade dress. I didn't realize that TechDisc came integrated into a disc instead of being an attachable sensor. Significantly less useful if you can't mount it to what you actually throw.
You choose the kind of disc its mounted on DD, FD, Mid, Putter. "TechDisc is a golf disc with sensors permanently attached. During assembly we calibrate the entire disc before shipping it out with a quickstart guide and USB-C charging cable." I think of it as making sure people have the band around the wrist playing Wii recklessly in front of an expensive TV :P
@@trev3971 I'm thinking that in order for the results to be as accurate as possible, the translation of the numbers has to be calibrated in order to compensate for the disc design and MOI.
@@trev3971 In the meantime, there's many 3 axis accelerometers available on the open market if someone wanted to build their own "techdisc" like device.
We'll note that he still didn't give flight numbers for the Dune. =) Probably Buzzzish? 4 5 -1 1? Tech disc is neat, but it's so expensive! I wish I could just rent one for an hour.
Flight numbers-not different places different people. Nope. Tech disc is good. Innovas flight numbers are reference points against their other discs in that same disc type catagory (Putters, Mids, Fairway & Distance) I understand it and it’s fine. Other companies can figure their own stuff out. Innova is father.
So after looking up this text disc product it seems you have to buy one for every type of disc (distant driver, fairway driver, mid and putter) and 300 dollars a piece it seems. Idk if I'm understanding this correctly but seems a little crazy to spend 1200 dollars on 4 to attach to each type of disc you have to test it....am I understanding this correctly? I would love to have one to see my specs but not gonna spend that much to measure specs on each type of disc
In reality though, you really don't need to take CFD and compare it to actual throws from people. That is buying into the current structure of flight numbers. If you only use CFD (and every manufacturer does as well), all users would adjust their understanding of how discs with certain flight numbers fly. Then science can truly designate flight numbers and it would be universal (to an extent) across all brands and be more useful and informative for the end users.
So you need a robot based on the average player throw to provide a constant baseline...then an app to generate your flight numbers based on your personal data from the computer disc.
All you need is an enclosed warehouse space at least 500' long, a robot that can throw at any programed speed and snap, and a computerized tracking system to track the flights. If I ever win the Powerball I will do this, but on the whole it seems like a fruitless way to lose money.
Look…as a manufacturer you don’t know if your max weight 13 speed is going to be thrown at 35mph by a 10 year old, or your 150g 7 speed is going to be thrown by AB at 90mph. So it’s bullshit to say “flight numbers are wrong” … flight numbers are relative to the player. A tilt is going to be a completely different disc to me than Eagle. A destroyer is going to be completely different to Calvin than to an amateur FPO player…IN GENERAL. What weight they are throwing, at what speed and how the wind resistance of the disc responds to the environment simply won’t be the same no matter what numbers you throw on the disc. That doesn’t mean they don’t have meaning or are “wrong.” The ONLY way to compare apples to apples is to have measure the weights of similar discs and have a player throw them all at the same weight in the same conditions and have a sample size that is statistically significant meaning THOUSANDS of throws with each disc…the downstream variables like wear and tear do not mean anything when you are applying initial disc numbers, cause you can’t assume any one disc with wear the same. So it comes down to your disc, the weight and the thrower. You can assume each manufacturer has their own process about grading like do they always grade at max weight? Or do they grade with pro level arms? Again that doesn’t make them “wrong” it makes them relative to their process and since everyone is doing their own process there will be a natural ebb and flow to each run, and their assigned numbers. TH-camrs have to get over this BS that they’re meaningless cause they’re not, and people either don’t understand the physics enough or they know too much and think their opinion is somehow better cause they can throw this 160g 5 year old destroyer 400 ft and this max weight Simon line only 320, AND THAT MAKES THE NUMBERS WRONG….pffft
Or... We need a true governing body ( ala the USGA or R&A) that can oversee the game and control aspects like these. I truly believe for the longevity of disc golf, it is bad that the PDGA , a commercial enitity, controls the rules and acts as a governing body. You just may be the guy to get that ball rolling Jesse. It's time the sport gets legit, so the dollars will follow.
This isn't an area that needs governing. No rules are involved. It's just marketing. No one in hockey polices if 100 flex Easton sticks are the same rigidity as 100 flex Bauer sticks.
Disc Throwing Robot. Why dont they just use a football thrower and just change the wheel speeds to replicate the point of release exerted on the inside and outside of the disc
Won't work. It needs to control, speed, spin, nose angle, and hyzer angle. A football or tennis ball machine can't do that, nor would a modified skeet throwing machine.
Really, the only way to get everyone on the same page would to use a robot in a wind tunnel. A 3rd party verification/ governing body of flight #. Or we could just keep buying molds and testing them for ourselves. It will probably be the 2nd choice.
Anyone who plays disc golf with me loves when I recommend them a new disc for covering a particular shot shape. I recommend Mold, Weight, and even check for a optimal personal PLH height as a fine tune detail. If i play at least one full round with you (more is better) i can put together a complete bag covering all the slots based on your arm speed, spin rate, angle of attack, pitch, roll, yaw etc. The hardest thing for me to figure for someone else is comfort, i can sorta get close but sometimes it's way off🤷.
This is a little ridiculous. The flight rating system is meant to be a general guideline to give you an idea how the disc should fly. Think of shoes. If you buy a size 11 in 5 different brands each shoe will fit differently. But you have a close idea of how it should fit. The flight numbers are good enough to give you an idea prior to purchase.
The issue there is that you're measuring something other than flight characteristics. For example, it's pretty well known that champion-style plastic is more stable than star-style plastic, even with the same mold. Innova accordingly uses different flight numbers for champion plastic in some molds. Other manufacturers don't do think. Either way, everybody should get on the same page.
Please show how much it costs companies to manufacture a disc??? I speculate that 15 cents of raw plastic becomes a 30 dollar disc. Please stop making money off my fun, eat the rich
Stooooooop it. Flight numbers are not that confusing. It's up to the individual to understand how discs fly for them in relation to the listed numbers. There's no magic to it. Innova's numbers are good and Discraft's OG numbers were good.
Wait. Some people aren’t fans of us? Unlikely ;)
Only communists, clearly
Vibram put flight path on the bottom of their discs along with speed. It makes more sense to me now than when I first got them.
Lighting had on the discs after the rebrand from war planes had what the disc would do like #1--4 with the name like #3 Hookshot or #1 driver while on discs having the stamp having as close as they could make it look the flight of the top level male pro sponsored by Lighting with still Original disc Rubber Putter and just the disc name as the stamp most of the time and on later discs also saying floats in water 170 grams or under.
Velocity, degrees turn, degrees fade, and distance.
I am thinking about making it my goal to standardize flight numbers, and answer questions about discs that we don't 100% know. I am currently in college doing everything I can think of to build a foundation, learning, planning, meeting people, etc. If you can think of anything you want me to know, please leave me a comment!
i’m sure many will support your mission, i’m in!
For years I've been saying, we need a machine that launches discs in a wind tunnel and measure their characteristics based on speed of flight and direction of wind. They should be more accurate like speed to the tenth of a number based on rim width, glide based on volume between the flight plate and the bottom of the rim and dome of the disc, turn at multiple speeds based on intended flight velocity, which is based on the LENGTH OF TIME the disc is turning before trying to fade. With a more accurate turn, the disc wouldn't need a fade rating. Plastic difference should require a completely new test.
people hate flight numbers because there IS NO STANDARD. There should be, and I've been laughed out of so many threads and comments for even suggesting there should be. If there was a science based approach on a universal flight system based on real, repeatable data, flight numbers would be awesome.
@@QactisX I love flightnumbers! They might be wrong often, but I am a nerd for this stuff ;)
@@QactisX The problem with asking for real, repeatable data is that the discs themselves are not repeatable. Two 169g Firebirds made from the same plastic can be wildly different profiles; at that point, even the highest quality data for one is inapplicable to the other. Even if you did broad spectrum testing across profiles, you still end up guessing flight characteristics based on which test example is most similar to what you've grabbed from the shelf, and we're back to square one.
@@trev3971 it would be up to PDGA to enforce production standards that minimize variation to a certain target. If Trilogy and MVP can do it, everyone else can.
Actually they were using it long before 2009. That is just the year where they started adding it to the stamp artwork. Prior to that, Innova published their numbers online and on in-store print posters and such.
Yep I remember that.
My older discs I still have the numbers in marker on them
Yeah, I remember studying the promotional charts that had those numbers when I first started in like 2007. So it was clear the numbers were meant to allow people to navigate the large lineup Innova had to make decisions on which discs to buy by comparing them vs Innova products. Not to compare their products to other manufacturers.
Vibram had the best testing and then track and speed of release for most optimum flight all printed on the disc
Flight numbers should be based on a flat release, at a standardized speed for an average player in neutral wind conditions at sea level. There should be a throwing machine that the PDGA approves for accuracy. Manufactures then send their disc in to get certified flight numbers. Each print run of the disc should be put through the same test and flight numbers should be set independently for each and EVERY run, including all different weights and different plastics.
As a customer, I’m tired of buying a disc that has been advertised to fly in a certain way only to find out I’ve wasted my money. Even though there’re a lot of variables that effect a disc flight, that doesn’t mean manufactures can’t agree on a starting base foundation upon which consumers can then use their best judgment on how it would fly for them under their specific variables.
I’m fine even if this adds cost to a disc and all manufacturers started to make a “Pro Line” of disc. This is what this sport needs to reach the next level. Almost every other sport has entry-level equipment and advanced-level pro equipment.
What sports are independently auditing and quantifying performance characteristics of consumer gear?
That makes very little sense. What do you mean by standardized speed? Every disc thrown at say 50 MPH? If so that only show that you haven't understood how flight numbers (are supposed to) work at all. Every number after the speed rating (especially turn and fade) is in relation to the speed rating. A 12 speed disc with 3 in fade is not comparable at all to a 4 speed disc with 3 in fade as obviously a 12 speed thrown at the same (slow) speed as a 4 speed should be thrown at for a full flight would be MUCH more stable. Therefore you would need a standardized testing speed for each disc speed (i.e. 14 different testing speeds). So much for being able to use an "average player" to test discs.
@@johnny1873 The whole point of my post was to point out the DG industry needs a standardized base foundation on which to base flight numbers by standardizing controllable variables.
Speed at which a disc is thrown is a controllable variable. Yup, you understood correctly “A standardized testing speed for each disc speed”. What those speeds are set at is up for debate by the industry. The most important issue is consensus across the industry & manufacturing reliability, so players have a guideline when purchasing a disc, it should be consistent to ensure relatability for the average consumer.
I like MVPs approach to speed with at least. Where it's the rim thickness in cm's - I forget if it's 11 or 12, but it's at least a set thing.
Millimeters, but yeah thats what i heard too
Thats "the original way" to do it by eg. Innova, Rim width - 10 mm = speed (Destroyer 22mm-10=12). But then there is the =K= Rask... ;D
Triology uses the same system for speed, they have several discs that have been compared and "approved" by the consumers so they just put every new disc in a competition against them from what I get (Johannes @ L64° is one of the throwers getting to set numbers).
Flight numbers are a tool to assist you in PURCHASING discs so you will know how they fly relative to each other given the same speed rating. Dave dunipace is a combination mendeleev and Dr Dre in the sport of disc golf.
Yes, what you say here is key (what I tried to explain to someone above), all the other numbers are just in relation to that specific speed rating, you cannot compare a putter with 3 in fade with a distance driver with 3 in fade (for example), most people don't seem to get that fact.
I always look a flight numbers as a comparison within a manufacturer, so I should be able to tell how a disc fly compared to other discs by the same manufacturer. I think some manufacturers use the rim thickness to determine the speed. After that who knows.
Yeah this is kinda how I've started to see em too
For years I've been saying, we need a machine that launches discs in a wind tunnel and measure their characteristics based on speed of flight and direction of wind. They should be more accurate like speed to the tenth of a number based on rim width, glide based on volume between the flight plate and the bottom of the rim and dome of the disc, turn at multiple speeds based on intended flight velocity, which is based on the LENGTH OF TIME the disc is turning before trying to fade. With a more accurate turn, the disc wouldn't need a fade rating. Plastic difference should require a completely new test.
people hate flight numbers because there IS NO STANDARD. There should be, and I've been laughed out of so many threads and comments for even suggesting there should be. If there was a science based approach on a universal flight system based on real, repeatable data, flight numbers would be awesome.
Flight numbers don't matter unless you are new to the sport or shopping a new brand. Even then, different runs of the same discs have different characteristic and can fly different depending on how you throw. The numbers are almost a suggestion and its up to you do dial in how they fly for your style.
seem like you didnt watch the vid if this is your take
Not that it's compliant with anything in the video, but I feel like the flight numbers make more sense if you only apply them within the same brand. Innova should have a noticable difference between turn 0 and turn -2 since they compare it against their own disks. If you find a brand where several flight numbers "feel" right, it's a decent chance that another disk from the same brand also fits the numbers for you.
But, of course, it's all with a pinch of salt.
This is the way the sport currently is but not what is possible or what should be acceptable.
Flight numbers should be based on a flat release, at a standardized speed for an average player in neutral wind conditions at sea level. There should be a throwing machine that the PDGA approves for accuracy. Manufactures then send their disc in to get certified flight numbers. Each print run of the disc should be put through the same test and flight numbers should be set independently for each and EVERY run, including all different weights and different plastics.
As a customer, I’m tired of buying a disc that has been advertised to fly in a certain way only to find out I’ve wasted my money. It shouldn’t be a question of the consumer having to ‘dial in’ if the product bought will do what it’s advertised to do. Even though there’re a lot of variables that effect a disc flight, that doesn’t mean manufactures and PDGA can’t agree on a starting base foundation upon which consumers can then use their best judgment on how it would fly for them under their specific variables.
I’m fine even if this adds cost to a disc and all manufacturers started to make a “Pro Line” of disc. This is what this sport needs to reach the next level. Almost every other sport has entry-level equipment and advanced-level pro equipment.
Manufacturers could submit their 3D CAD files to the PDGA along with sample discs when getting approved and the PDGA could assign flight numbers accordingly based on their metrics… what do you think. (Along with an NDA probably)
I actually see a world where you go to a disc golf shop and get do a "fitting" as you do in regular golf. You throw a few shots with into a net with the computer attached to the disc, give the "pro" a few ideas of what discs you like and dislike and then they could use the data collected as well as your personal preferences on how you like to throw and they could probably build you a fairly decent bag from that, or just individual discs.
The tracking software used for golf is much more high tech than the computer you fit on a disc, so I dont even see it costing that much to implement into your local disc golf shop. I dont think you could get a good result of going from the data alone, but a knowledgable "pro" combined with the data could probably give you some good results.
Sounds like a fast track to making disc more expensive like ball golf. i just wanna go buy some new discs and have a relative idea of what im buying without spending an arm n a leg...
I think it were Seeker Disc Golf that did this in a store having mostly Triology and an even harder push on DD. Seems a load of people got discs that fit their game very nice looking at the numbers. Saw it on Insta.
@@L3TheRapper I mean… no one is forcing you to get fitted in this scenario. Its just something you could do to improve your chances of getting a good frisbee. I dont think the manufacturers would do this either, in this scenario its the physical retailers that would have this as an option.
When the numbers from disc to disc are close its hard to notice but i notice a big difference between a speed 7 vs 13, and likewise between a turn -5 and a 0.
Innova first started putting flight numbers on the discs in 2009. But flight numbers existed before this, just not stamped on the disc. I first started playing around 2006 and still have most of those discs [ some were lost, some fell apart over time]. They don't have flight numbers on the discs. Disc flight charts and brochures were available in disc golf stores. I still have one from that time period.
Discraft Luna definitely needs a flight number update. I don't know what they were smoking when they came up with those numbers but I bet it smelled like marketing
Another killer video. Your story telling is getting better and better bro! Seriously good stuff 🔥
Innova and other brands who adopted the flight number system, as well as Discraft (who developed their stability rating) have tried to be accurate enough to give consumers a guide on what their discs do. While not perfect or consistent, due to brand differences and actual mold/plastic differences (among other things) they're better than nothing. That said, I would like to see the industry move forward and standardize together. Not sure the PDGA is up to the task of creating and enforcing a flight rating for everyone. And I'm not sure the industry or consumers would like the results, either.
I'm pretty certain there is a video where Dunipace was explaining that their flight number system was developed relative to other molds in that category (i.e. all mid-ranges against each other, all fairways against each other, all drivers against each other).
Yes you're correct, I also remember watching that video 👍.
Ye, and now they are filling slots in their line-up based on handfeel with the same flight as the classics, its wild that they have all of the molds they got ! xD
Wood core, Aspen is lighter then plastic, build a disc like you make skis, a pressure at temp fused with 3m glue it’s not difficult
You rock panda.
Frankly I don't know how standardization would work, but yeah, the easy answer to what should the flight numbers be, is pretty much send it out to a ton of different skill levels and locations ask them how they think it flys and compare that to your actual flight experience with it and what the cfd might suggest.
I dont really think it would matter either. Its not like how the discs fly is a secret or anything. Nothing is gained by knowing the numbers in competitive disc golf.
While there would be a degree of arbitrariness in mapping formula to number, it would be very possible to connect flight numbers to measured aerodynamics. I think speed and glide would be the simplest. Speed, for example, could be tied to drag. Less drag = more speed. Speed 13 could mean a disc that loses 600 Joules/meter, with every additional 50 Joules dropping the speed by 1. You'd obviously need to map the numbers to something resembling current standards, but you get the idea. You could then calculate the speed that disc needs to be moving to generate 175g of lift, and base glide off of that, with lower speeds resulting in higher glide. Since current glides are relative to speed, you'd probably need to fudge together a chart based current usage. If the current 10 speeds range from generating 175g of lift at 40mph-60mph, you'd say 60mph = 1 glide, 50 = 4 glide, 40 = 7 glide, etc. Turn could then be based on clockwise torque on the disc at 175g lift speed, and fade would be the torque at say, half that speed. Standardize rotational speed as something middle of the bell curve tied to speed, like maybe 175g lift speed in mph * 20 rpm. Anchor discs to a spinning post in a wind tunnel and measure it empirically.
The problem with flight numbers is the appearance of standardization where there isn't any. Innova's flight numbers are a walled system designed to relate the discs to each other. In choosing to copy the same system, the other manufacturers invited direct comparisons where there shouldn't be any.
It's worse than that. They only are comparable to other discs of the same speed. And speed is very subjective. Contrary to what Dave D says, a Stingray and a Pig DO NOT fly at the same speed.
Joe's Universal Flight Chart from GGGT was a pretty decent guideline. I think Dan Beto was basically the throwing robot.
Like I said once before. You and I could be good friends..lol. Still just loving what you're doing all these years later! Probably shouldn't stop.. just keep going.
Innova and Discraft were the first online to have beginner and advanced flights for the discs in some part of the sites they had.
Soooo... based on all the data collected from the tech disc. Are/were you able to calculate or figure out different flight numbers based on comparison of other discs flights in the system?
Why does the PDGA not do it's job and assign discs standardized flight numbers when they approve a mold?
Not part of the standard ;)
1) Not their job.
2) If there were to be a company determining flight numbers, they could not be associated in any way with the PDGA, or any other regulating body.
3) There is a real chance the PDGA might not be around in a few years.
I've had 2 Champ Roadrunners that right out of the box flew like slightly beat in Firebirds.... and i currently have a 160 g. Firebird that flies like a perfectly beat in Teebird.... the most consistent flight in any condition.
Flight numbers are basic guidlines
Great video. You are trying to tackle an impossible problem and I like your approach. Setting "standards" implies removing as many elements disc/person/context in your vernacular as possible. The ONE that can't be removed is person. Your DUNE user throws show that perfectly.
With so much variability introduced just by the manufacturing process (material, color!, time, temp, ambient temp, etc. etc.) there's no way to come up with one set of numbers for each disc. Over time the manufacturers will create a standards committee (I've been part of several in other industries and it's incredibly difficult and boring) and choose something that all can agree on. Then they'll agree that the name should be changed to something like "basic/base/standard flight numbers".
Coming back to my main point with so many variables introduced by the "person" there will never be precision in this area. Everyone will need to either understand how their own variables (speed/spin/wobble/launch angle/nose angle) affect the "standard flight numbers" or just BUY and TRY!
Great vid! I wonder if in the profile comparison clip the “MD1” is actually an MD3?
I might be wrong tho
Its a sign, vid drops as soon as i was thinking about getting another inner core.
Would you be interested in designing and building a testing machine that allows to adjust speed, spin, angle to eliminate as many inconsistencies in someone’s throw to get more accuracy of the actual flight path? Of course test indoors to remove wind and then test in specific wind conditions as well. I’m down!!
Innova's new star plastic is extremely understable. They definitely need to adjust the flight numbers of their disc lol.
It fucking is huh.... can hardly drive my putter without a flip....
thats not true. git gud
Watching this I just thought out the first two numbers for most discs. Maybe not so much putters. Just think like a destroyer is 12 5. 12mm rim 5mm suppose to be to the top of the dome? Just a thought
I confess, I use the “don’t overthink it, it’s a general rating” approach. I assume speed is a function of the rim width, and the rest is up to me to figure out how the disc flies for me.
MVP and Simon are working on a robot😀. The tech disc is nice but way too pricey for a normal user. It is cool you are using that data though. Oh I am at 6900ft
I have never taken the time to learn about the flight numbers. I have always just used the stability rating (5th # on discraft discs) as a general idea of how the disc should fly since that's what I mostly throw.
I read somewhere that flight ratings refer to the disc once it’s beat in? I don’t think I heard Jesse say anything about that, but I believe it’s possible, and if so seems like the wrong way to go about it. Ratings should be based off how the disc will fly out of the box. Anyone who plays will know that discs beat in and change with time and use. Am I missing something, or did the Internet provide me some incorrect data 🫠
Ive seen videos of that tech tool vs an actual radar gun and its wrong on speed which means its wrong on everything else. Not to mention attaching an added weight to what you hope is the middle of a disc changes the flight of that disc
Disc throwing robot?
Where's Mark Rober when we need him?
What if you made an equation for each flight number... the variables being the player's arm speed, spin rate, and wobble. Then you could see exactly how a disc will fly for you. You could just have a thing on your website where players can input their stats and it produces the flight numbers.
I think you guys should do a limited run of dunes with those flight numbers stamped on 👀
No stamps from Trashpanda ever, unless you mean to melt them into the plate? I approve of that kind of hot stamping, melt it! :D 14, 7, 10, 4 ftw!
The good thing about tech disc is the sample size will continue to grow. I want one or at least to try one. Have no idea how fast or what rpm I might be doing.
I think it would be rather difficult to standardize such complex amalgamations of different factors. Speed, spin, angle of attack, disc shape. Even pros throw discs in different ways. A distance driver thrown high with lot of nose down or low with less nose down could end at a similar distance but wildly different shot shapes. Honestly I kind of like MVPs take on it the most. Just draw a few squiggly lines for how a disc might fly at different launch speeds. Then once you try one of their discs you have some idea.
The number system has devolved into pure marketing hype. Innova It and Leopard3 have wildly different flights. Trilogy has probably 25 "14-speed"molds with rim widths between 21-25mm. Even after throwing ten of those molds you don't know what you are getting with the next one. Glide rating is nearly useless, if you have two discs with same turn and different glide, the one with lower glide is probably more stable overall. Fade again doesn't mean anything these days, especially for putters.
There can never be a unified, objective set of flight rating numbers. Because you can't get independent manufacturers to ALL have the exact same (expensive!) robot throwing machine, which can be deployed inside a covered stadium, in order to test fly discs. Nor can you define a set of parameters which are more useful than the existing ones, or which can be applied to discs in different places and different climatic conditions at different times, and altitudes.
Plus, because of differential cooling differences between plastics, it is literally impossible to make high speed golf discs exactly the same. And so, by necessity, the flight numbers can only ever be approximate. And this (despite the claims) is a GOOD THING.
it is essential for the sport, that newcomers to the game rely upon the expertise and knowledge of retailers and other experts. And so in my retail store, I always say something like this to my new players, "Until you have learned what the flight numbers describe, you can rely on me to put the most appropriate discs in your hands, and I guarantee that if you allow me to do this for you, you will progress at the fastest possible rate. And if I tell you that a disc will do X for you, and you find that it does Y, then you bring it back to me, and I will give you a disc that does X, for free."
In this way, I develop a relationship with my customers, and I can direct them to the 200,000 words of instructional articles at my blog site:
www.vorticasport.com/blog
Flight numbers are relevant within their own brand and within their own speed bracket. If you use flight numbers correctly they do exactly their job in helping you identify how a disc is supposed to be used. It doesn't matter that all 5/5/-2/1 discs on the market don't fly exactly the same. What you should be taking away from those numbers is that it's that brands hyzerflip mid.
Innova had the flight numbers since 2000 but did not use them on the discs until 2009 and a few other companies may have used the same system including Gateway I know was one. The Discraft had its own single number system on the discs that never took off as this only assessed the stability a disc would have but had it had the overall turn and speed on the disc it might have taken off as the other flight system. This is the true how we have come to having flight numbers on the discs.
What should happen is using the crowd sourcing of flight numbers like on infinite discs. But I think is a great idea is you get a store that has one of those discs and you get several regular players through this to get their numbers and averages, and then you get a list of discs from them that they would say are their go-to that fit their style. Which would be a great launching point for anyone else who then comes in the store and has similar speed angle and whatnot.
I think this is important because right now you're going to have a domination towards the bigger brands because they're going to have a bigger pool of disc to reference against. This would have a good opportunity for those to find desks that aren't mainstream and promote some of the smaller brands.
I actually find the Infinite Discs reviewer flight numbers to be generally pretty worthless. Most reviewers stick to the manufacturer numbers, or hover around there, so it ends up only nudging the number 0.1 in a given direction.
Does elevation effect your manufacturing process? Are you getting different plastic densities than if you made it at sea level?
The temperature is way more important to keep runs the same shape, also humidity will affect discs since the plastic used in "Premium" discs can have different amount of actual water "infused" depending on the weather where you throw and store them, it changes, its called... google: hygroscopic ^_^
I'm surprised you didn't talk about why different runs of the same mold have different stability. That's the part that I think is broken. It's a roll of the dice on what you're going to get these days... Some manufactures do this better than others IMO, but as a consumer, nothing is more frustrating than finding a new mold that you love, losing it right away, buying a new one and having it fly COMPLETELY different from the one you fell in love with.
Tech disc got so far ahead right now! Discmania had some collab with a similar thing on the way as well, I love it, cheaper than getting several other measuring devices of different kinds =)
I reached out to GameProofer twice, earlier this year - and they never responded. I reached out to TechDisc as soon as I found out about them, and they replied within a half hour. That's a big difference in my eyes.
@@NickCarroll Aww shucks
@@tech_disc Seriously, you guys are killing it. I appreciate that you're not only willing to bring the tech out - but interact with the people who can promote it and use it to advance the industry.
A lot of your videos give me Vsauce vibes and I love it!
Flight numbers 🔛🔝 , give you a good idea on how the disc should fly 80% the time
A topic you have not covered is Moment Of Inertia (MOI) and how the techdisc sensor affects it.
I emailed techdisc but have not heard back from them.
The techdisc device comes already mounted on a disc.
I ASSUME that they have it adjusted to negate it's affect on MOI but I've yet to have that verified.
To illustrate your point, the PDGA does not list flight numbers in their certified disc database. They list just the dimensional and mechanical specs for each disc. I take this to mean that they, the PDGA, doesn't want to be held accountable for the flight numbers.
Accountability is why the flight numbers exist as they are. Manufacturers don't want to be held accountable for specific disc performance so instead of publishing actual specs, the publish these subjective numbers and flight curves.
However, MVP has made a market by pushing their increased MOI as a design feature that increases their performance on their "GYRO" line of discs. Even though their MOI is just slightly more than a single mold disc.
So, anyway, I would really like to know if techdisc somehow skews the numbers to compensate for the decrease in MOI of their techdisc equipped discs.
Gyro is trade dress and nothing appreciably more. Granted, it's *brilliant* trade dress that can be identified instantly from a significant distance, but still just trade dress.
I didn't realize that TechDisc came integrated into a disc instead of being an attachable sensor. Significantly less useful if you can't mount it to what you actually throw.
You choose the kind of disc its mounted on DD, FD, Mid, Putter.
"TechDisc is a golf disc with sensors permanently attached. During assembly we calibrate the entire disc before shipping it out with a quickstart guide and USB-C charging cable." I think of it as making sure people have the band around the wrist playing Wii recklessly in front of an expensive TV :P
@@trev3971 I'm thinking that in order for the results to be as accurate as possible, the translation of the numbers has to be calibrated in order to compensate for the disc design and MOI.
@@trev3971 In the meantime, there's many 3 axis accelerometers available on the open market if someone wanted to build their own "techdisc" like device.
We'll note that he still didn't give flight numbers for the Dune. =) Probably Buzzzish? 4 5 -1 1?
Tech disc is neat, but it's so expensive! I wish I could just rent one for an hour.
Hmm... Tell your local shop to reach out to us. Let's make this happen.
@@tech_discAny plans in shipping to European countries?
Flight numbers-not different places different people. Nope. Tech disc is good. Innovas flight numbers are reference points against their other discs in that same disc type catagory (Putters, Mids, Fairway & Distance) I understand it and it’s fine. Other companies can figure their own stuff out. Innova is father.
I agree flight numbers are just a general idea of the disc potential. Everyone throws different.
So after looking up this text disc product it seems you have to buy one for every type of disc (distant driver, fairway driver, mid and putter) and 300 dollars a piece it seems. Idk if I'm understanding this correctly but seems a little crazy to spend 1200 dollars on 4 to attach to each type of disc you have to test it....am I understanding this correctly? I would love to have one to see my specs but not gonna spend that much to measure specs on each type of disc
The whole system is broken just because people think that "very stable" and "over stable" are the same thing. Drives me insane.
We need an Iron Byron like the golfers use for discs!
Even then you’d need it to throw in all conceivable wind conditions and elevations.
I think small picture from the flight path would be nicer. At least that would be more helpful for beginners..
Crowd source the numbers and add standard deviations to each of them so you can see how consistent the numbers seem to people.
Sounds like Infinite Discs have a groundwork of statistics in place, at least with the most popular molds :)
Lunas are prime example of just plain wrong flight numbers. I've thrown almost every type of Luna and none are 0 turn 3 fade. not even close.
In reality though, you really don't need to take CFD and compare it to actual throws from people. That is buying into the current structure of flight numbers. If you only use CFD (and every manufacturer does as well), all users would adjust their understanding of how discs with certain flight numbers fly. Then science can truly designate flight numbers and it would be universal (to an extent) across all brands and be more useful and informative for the end users.
So you need a robot based on the average player throw to provide a constant baseline...then an app to generate your flight numbers based on your personal data from the computer disc.
All you need is an enclosed warehouse space at least 500' long, a robot that can throw at any programed speed and snap, and a computerized tracking system to track the flights.
If I ever win the Powerball I will do this, but on the whole it seems like a fruitless way to lose money.
Six Sided Discs has a series called "Flight Numbers don't matter".
ayyy shout out to Dax at Visionary Disc Golf for those practice nets in this video
Look…as a manufacturer you don’t know if your max weight 13 speed is going to be thrown at 35mph by a 10 year old, or your 150g 7 speed is going to be thrown by AB at 90mph. So it’s bullshit to say “flight numbers are wrong” … flight numbers are relative to the player. A tilt is going to be a completely different disc to me than Eagle. A destroyer is going to be completely different to Calvin than to an amateur FPO player…IN GENERAL. What weight they are throwing, at what speed and how the wind resistance of the disc responds to the environment simply won’t be the same no matter what numbers you throw on the disc. That doesn’t mean they don’t have meaning or are “wrong.” The ONLY way to compare apples to apples is to have measure the weights of similar discs and have a player throw them all at the same weight in the same conditions and have a sample size that is statistically significant meaning THOUSANDS of throws with each disc…the downstream variables like wear and tear do not mean anything when you are applying initial disc numbers, cause you can’t assume any one disc with wear the same. So it comes down to your disc, the weight and the thrower. You can assume each manufacturer has their own process about grading like do they always grade at max weight? Or do they grade with pro level arms? Again that doesn’t make them “wrong” it makes them relative to their process and since everyone is doing their own process there will be a natural ebb and flow to each run, and their assigned numbers. TH-camrs have to get over this BS that they’re meaningless cause they’re not, and people either don’t understand the physics enough or they know too much and think their opinion is somehow better cause they can throw this 160g 5 year old destroyer 400 ft and this max weight Simon line only 320, AND THAT MAKES THE NUMBERS WRONG….pffft
Or... We need a true governing body ( ala the USGA or R&A) that can oversee the game and control aspects like these. I truly believe for the longevity of disc golf, it is bad that the PDGA , a commercial enitity, controls the rules and acts as a governing body. You just may be the guy to get that ball rolling Jesse. It's time the sport gets legit, so the dollars will follow.
This isn't an area that needs governing. No rules are involved. It's just marketing. No one in hockey polices if 100 flex Easton sticks are the same rigidity as 100 flex Bauer sticks.
Each disc manufacturer is motivated to get flight numbers approximately correct in order to reduce the number of whining customers.
No standardization can happen without a machine created to launch (throw) them with precision.
Disc Throwing Robot. Why dont they just use a football thrower and just change the wheel speeds to replicate the point of release exerted on the inside and outside of the disc
Won't work. It needs to control, speed, spin, nose angle, and hyzer angle. A football or tennis ball machine can't do that, nor would a modified skeet throwing machine.
@@MichaelSweet-nn5bgYeah, StuffMadeHere's attempt is a great example of that.
Reminds me of contrast ratio for tvs
Really, the only way to get everyone on the same page would to use a robot in a wind tunnel. A 3rd party verification/ governing body of flight #. Or we could just keep buying molds and testing them for ourselves. It will probably be the 2nd choice.
Amazing video
Anyone who plays disc golf with me loves when I recommend them a new disc for covering a particular shot shape.
I recommend Mold, Weight, and even check for a optimal personal PLH height as a fine tune detail.
If i play at least one full round with you (more is better) i can put together a complete bag covering all the slots based on your arm speed, spin rate, angle of attack, pitch, roll, yaw etc.
The hardest thing for me to figure for someone else is comfort, i can sorta get close but sometimes it's way off🤷.
The only flight number I consider is the speed. All the others are just suggestions... hardly ever accurate.
Build the robot, from recycled parts. ❤
They make more money on disc sales based off flight numbers if they don't have science behind it. Keeps people guessing my they got the money
We're working on putting discs into a wind tunnel to be able to investigate these things. Let me know if you're interested.
This is a little ridiculous. The flight rating system is meant to be a general guideline to give you an idea how the disc should fly. Think of shoes. If you buy a size 11 in 5 different brands each shoe will fit differently. But you have a close idea of how it should fit. The flight numbers are good enough to give you an idea prior to purchase.
The only number I really pay attention to is: Speed.
Damn, my md1 ain't that stable
Then you break a disc in an it Flys completely different
Tech disc is 300 dollars. Not a consumer product.
Then there's discraft with a FIFTH number that makes zero sense.
Put all those factors on a disc
Save the flight numbers
Still loving the Knee Deep Brewing hat.
What's the dune? Oh wait its that trash disc 😅
"turn.. 10, oh god"
I wonder how much pollution and waste these recycling plants produce. Just curious.
A new study showed that hitting the thumbs up button raises your levels of stoke and karma significantly.
Flight numbers should be standardized based on the measurements of the disc.
The issue there is that you're measuring something other than flight characteristics. For example, it's pretty well known that champion-style plastic is more stable than star-style plastic, even with the same mold. Innova accordingly uses different flight numbers for champion plastic in some molds. Other manufacturers don't do think. Either way, everybody should get on the same page.
MVP and Lone Star also adjust flight numbers for different plastics.
I don’t care that your girlfriend can’t tele.
Envy, Malta, warship, Athena, anax, zues for the win
since the pdga is a democratic body we are all members of, shouldn't we just propose it be standardized? get on it jesse
Please show how much it costs companies to manufacture a disc???
I speculate that 15 cents of raw plastic becomes a 30 dollar disc.
Please stop making money off my fun, eat the rich
I have purchased many discs based on their flight numbers to find out they did not at all fly like the flight numbers say.
Pdga wut? Lol
Stooooooop it. Flight numbers are not that confusing. It's up to the individual to understand how discs fly for them in relation to the listed numbers. There's no magic to it. Innova's numbers are good and Discraft's OG numbers were good.
Can you PLEASE send some discs to 309 Disc Chuckers in East Peoria IL