I have an idea for you. Currently discs have flight numbers like speed, glide, turn and fade, on for each. What we need, is a table of flight numbers as a function of speed. So, let's say, you make a speed 8 disc, what if you throw it like you would throw a disc with speed 6 or 7, 9 or 10. Because you can throw it faster or slower, some will flip, some will glide.
Something that can do any speed, rotation, angle and nose angle would be needed to get really useful data. Testing a decent amount of different speeds at different nose angles and angles while filming from at least above and side would enable creating a system that shows how the disc should fly for any given input parameters. More data collected, the more accurate the results. With a few years of testing many disc models could get an accurate profile, maybe even with wear level, weight and dome as variables. It would be a lot of testing but after several machines are built, I'm sure companies could hire a couple people for a decent money to do testing all day long. Also after a good amount of data is collected, a standardised system for flight numbers could be developed. I believe this will happen some day, I might even design a machine myself once I have sufficient money, time and skills.
Great stuff ::Music:: and very educational. I think flight numbers more come down to what slot needs to be filled to sell a disc and convince you it's not exactly the same as another disc you already own. But your assessment seems fair and accurate
I'm a nobody but I agree with the final numbers completely. I personally don't think it has a -1 turn, so I think this is perfect. Love this disc. Just got in my two extra seconds not too long ago.
My biggest issue was how light the first runs were put out at. I didn't respond to the survey because I very much didn't feel good about giving an opinion based on what could be in the future, a stock 170+ disc. Mine was 166 and i heard others got even lighter. Also, I'd love to know what Loft takes into account the average amount of spin a person puts on a disc. Weight distribution of the plate to the edge of the rim theoretically changes stability in flight based on centrifugal force. To sign off so i don't sound so negative; genuinely, i love what you guys are doing and keep putting out the best DG content on youtube!
Thanks! Awesome that you not only put in all the work and thought, but that you also addressed the whole issue of flight numbers and the arbitrary assignment of them by each manufacturer
TH-cam algo kicked you out...just catching up now. I agree with your flight numbers and I'm glad you did so much testing and took many factors into consideration. Still waiting for that Grip6 disc throwing robot! Apparently MVP is working on one too!
Joseph here. Thanks for shedding light on a subjectmany of us take for granted, but have no concept of the science involved! Received a two pack of your seconds a while ago and am wanting to test them out. However, elevation can be a factor for another reason. We got over 8 inches (snow) last night (7,200' elevation) and I don't want to lose one!
In the future when releasing a disc in the winter it might be helpful to wait a few months before you do a survey. I was only able to throw a few times in deep snow at elevation during sub freezing temps before the survey came out. However, even with the lousy weather I knew this disc would make the bag. It's fantastic!
@TrashPandaDiscGolf totally agree with the numbers too. Plus that's a cool way of deciding the numbers. Any idea how consistent each run will be with the first run?
Thx for the explanation at the end. I was about to write something about that. ^^ But it explains it and I can live with that (having not thrown my brand new Inner Cores I have received today, I have not data whatsoever anyway. ^^)
Crazy to see the variety of answers for the flight numbers. I've been comparing the inner core to the Lat64 Spike(4,3,-1,1), which i've been throwing for over a decade, and its noticeably faster and more over stable. Cool to see a breakdown of your process though! Flight numbers have always been more of a guideline really.
after 2 aces with the inner core and a few painful chain outs I have to say that these flight numbers are awesome. I also have to say that I love this disc and it will have a forever home in my bag.
Oh and just a side fyi, i have one of the first (keychain) molds and it has a considerable puddle top and is my best understable putter! Your inner core flight numbers i think are spot on and the clear one i have is the same but with a (-3) turn! So sweet!!! Especially simce i dont have a forehand! I cant wait for your midrange!!
Thanks, this is really interesting! The current flight rating system is truly unlogical and it all starts with the fact that no one knows what the different speeds really are. For our first disc we used a combination of player feedback, subjective truth-telling and arm wrestling. Maybe that’s why our first disc have flight ratings for three different speeds now.
I Just received two inner core one week ago and i made few rounds with it. I want to compare it to the pure as I am Putting with medium pure and also throwing them a lot. According to the Numbers on the pure your Numbers on the inner core are fitting for me. My experience: Little Bit less speed to the pure Little little bit less glide to the pure Bit more understable to the pure. I am looking foorward how they will fligh after some more tree and of course basket hits. You are doing a great Job. Greetings from Germany
The way the disc flew to others like the Nova or the Pure both discs I have seen thrown before by people it is true to those discs. Another good one was from Discraft the Buzzz not in speed but in the flight shape of the flight is really similar to this disc (the Panda discs Puter) and yes, I have seen the disc thrown in the Black Hills on a course to make the assessment myself.
All right, so I have to admit Jesse that yes, I think there needs to be some standardization in flight numbers. Honestly, I think that's something that should be regulated by the PGA but I like where you're going with in terms of the science. I think all of your methods made absolute sense in comparison to one another and how you remove the human element. Also, I'm a fairly big fan of loft because of their scientific approach, so I'm glad that you can partner with them to do the simulations. I think that was a brilliant idea. In fact, i would say that if you were going to look at enforcing anything and bringing it up to the PDGA as a whole, I think that mom should be the ones to spearhead the beginning of that because of the way that they designed their business using those digital models
Fun fact, the arbitrary subjective assignment of seemingly important numbers isn't unique to disc manufacturing. You know the treadwear rating on your car's tires? Entirely arbitrary and product-line-relative within each manufacturer. Definitely appreciate the scientific approach and hope that it's not too late for disc golf to adopt some standards (and a 2-way level-ground average for future distance records).
Ive always though that the pdga should determine flight numbers. Like you as the developer you can reccomend what you think they will be but in the end the company that approves discs should be the determinig factor. Currently we dont have a device that can throw discs on any path you want so until we do they should all be thrown at the same speed "say 60mph" with a similar release many times and base it on that. It would also be awesome if companies would release high and low speed flight as well as that changes based on experience and lower speed flight could be more for beginners/ams where high speed would be pro. Honestly though with all the money the pdga gets they need to develop a machine that throws discs. It shouldnt be hard.
In the end you are also having to compare how it flys with everyone else’s arbitrary numbers. Computation fluid dynamics is great if everyone used it with the same parameters. But since most are just chosen numbers, going with a consensus will probably give you the most accurate true value. Just next time don’t bias the results by providing what you think the numbers should be. Similar to how the average of all the guesses of jellybeans in a large jar is surprisingly accurate, like usually within 1% of the actual number. So your numbers are probably more accurate than most companies.
It's interesting to see the process of determining flight numbers first hand. It only seems natural to standardize flight numbers/ratings with all PDGA certified discs and I'm surprised we have yet to set a flight rating standard on all new moulds. The science part does seem to be way more tedious when comparing it to just having an experienced opinion on the numbers.
So when you were doing simulations with the Loft did you simulate crazy stuff like, what if we throw this 90mph on a giant anny line. Does it simulate distance at all or just give you data concerning flight numbers?
One big problem with flight numbers I think is the variability in stability based on throwing speed. If you throw a destroyer but don't have the arm speed the numbers won't feel true. Same goes with something like a buzz, the higher the speed you throw it at, the more understable it is going to fly. I feel like humans can't gage well enough the speed at which they throw so robots or sensors would be needed for accurate tests. Love your videos and mission btw, keep it up!
Yeah on top of that the spin of the disc affects the turn just as much, and it's even harder to gauge. Combination of those 2 facts makes turn the least reliable flight number by a mile, I have discs with -3 that go into roller and -2 that I will never ever turn even an inch, that makes no sense from scientific point of view and some standarization has to come at some point. Or just do it like discraft and don't put flight numbers on the disc, I'm a fan.
Don't they make algorighms that throws discs? I recall this from a guy who made a mechanical arm and tried to use the trebuchet motion to assist in launching a disc. If I remember correctly, he designed a program to throw thousands of discs.
just got my inner core 166g i have a noodle arm and throw a stand still do to age old injurys my off tee with a fairway about200ish 1st throw with ic 210 flat and straight next throws (6) all within 5-10 feet each other did hyzer holds very well andhyzer same all about 180-200 ft did some putting with and felt great in the hand and for me did little beter then usal so far great disc lookin to get another will let u know more after i play a round or two with it
You can't trust the computer completely, but on the other hand if you compare to existing discs then you should only compare to discs that everyone agrees are marked correctly, and which discs are those?
It's an incredibly neutral disc. Numbers? What numbers? Wait, it replaced two other molds in my bag, so 2. So far... All kidding aside: thanks for sharing this. Interesting to see how the other participants answered.
Jesse can you show me your preferred grip for the Inner Core? Also wanted to tell you that my very very very first throw with my factory second inner core was an upshot on the first hole of my local course, and it was an 80 foot throw in, not putt, for birdie!
I remember hearing on an episode of Patent Pending from Jomez that Grip6 was creating a machine to throw discs in a repeatable manner. As an engineer I got super excited about that. Did you reach out to them?
I was thinking about how to design one and realised there are another two factors that would be difficult to control: atmosphere and ground play. Ideally you'd test indoors with HVAC off and on artificial grass, otherwise you get uncontrollable scatter in the data. Still, it would be an improvement over the current standard of disc reviews which is a single throw of each type.
I'm 6:47 into this, and are you Thinking about what has been tried by Peter Stripol? Like a Machine to Throw Discs? Even Simon wants to do it... I'm Here to help come up with one also. But, im Broke Vet working at wally world.
I've always heard to consider one's level of play. A new player might not handle a higher speed disc like a pro. The flight charts don't factor that in. Also... how will weight difference alter the flight of any given disc?
But the whole reason a disc flies Is because of the rotations of the disc. The higher the rpm, the better the glide is going to be. The variation in the estimated glide is the difference in people's ability to spin the disc. RPM is also going to affect turn and fade, more rpms, more turn, fewer rpms, harder fade. This is such a fun topic to chew on, it needs beer and pizza.
I'm probably in the minority but I think we should throw out the old flight number system and just write the coefficient of lift drag and pitching moment on the discs. That way you can know (in a rigorously proven way) how the disc will interact with the air
You can't write those on a disc because they're curves that vary with Angle of Attack, and the AoA varies throughout the flight (that's why we can get turn *and* fade during a flight). I suppose you could standardise 2 or 3 angles at which you provide the data and then you'd only have 6 or 9 values. Still, converting those into a flight is tricky because they interact. High lift reduces AoA, high drag makes the disc reach high AoA sooner and so on. Having the curves would be an excellent starting point for generating more accurate flight numbers or a new simplified characteristics system though.
@@MiG82au I think that right now we have a broken system (obviously lol). Right now we have mostly arbitrary numbers that people learn how to relate to on their own. I think that if we started using a single standardized of AoA people would be able to relate more accurately to a disc before purchase. Plus then I could nerd out about the new system
@@jacobdecatur2230 oh yeah, it's super bad. I had a glow Insanity that was rated -2 turn but flew like my 0 3 discs. I know that that's because the glow plastic ends up being a different shape, but then what's the point of the completely wrong numbers?
I'm shocked that airspeed, MOI, angular momentum and gyroscopic precession were not mentioned once in this video. So basically, the computer analysis was with a non spinning disc?
None of those except airspeed affect the aerodynamic forces which is what the CFD was calculating. The calculated flight profiles do take airspeed, precession and angular momentum into account along with the aerodynamic coefficients. Spin has been measured to have negligible effect on disc aerodynamics (Potts, 2005) and only affects the rate of roll.
My point was that if the flight characteristic of a disc is to be modeled by a program, then there's more to it than just the aerodynamics of the disc design and nose angle. We still do not know at what velocity and angular velocity the disc must be moving in order to obtain the other flight numbers. I applaud Jesse for doing this. I believe this is a first step. I hope more manufacturers start taking this approach.
@@davelopez9161 I clearly told you that the CFD is just generating aerodynamic coefficients and that there's a second simulation with spin and mass for generating the flight path. You haven't found a glaring oversight.
*Insert Jesse Pinkman meme* Yeah! Science! But seriously, standardization of flight numbers using actual data points from a simulation protocol like Loft uses would make the most sense. At least then, people would be comparing their personal variability against a closer-to-static standard, across all manufacturers.
I believe the level of precision you’re claiming “speed of 2 or 3” etc is fine, and no better or worse than what other manufacturers are stating but I take issue with your claims of “simulates exactly how the disc would fly…”. Maybe the folks at Loft told you this but it’s nonsense. The folks at Loft should have explained to you the severe limitations of CFD for this application. It’s way too involved to explain here but it comes down to turbulence models, lack of a boundary layer transition, highly 3-dimensional flow, and grid dependency. Ask Loft what their y+ value was. Ask them to show you their solutions were grid independent. Ask them to show you the difference between solutions when running fully turbulent vs fully laminar boundary layer models and how they account for the existence of both in the real world. No matter how careful your model is, or how fine your mesh is, at these Reynolds numbers there is a laminar separation bubble that exists on the suction (upper) side of the disc at the normal operating range of nose angles and the position and size of this bubble completely dominates the stability characteristics of the disc. The bubble also to a lesser extent influences the drag of the disc. Your CFD model is never going to correctly predict the characteristics of that separation bubble. No chance. I wouldn’t even say CFD is useful for predicting trends between various molds, let alone absolute results for a single disc. CFD results with pretty colors are impressive and look convincing but it doesn’t mean the results are at all based in reality. Ultimately the only way to get flight numbers is exactly what you did, compare one disc to another in flight, with a large sample size to account for variations of a given mold. Best wishes.
I can't speak for this simulation, but laminar separation bubbles have been modelled on airfoils so it is possible. "Disc golf trajectory modelling combining computational fuid dynamics and rigid body dynamics" (2022) validates their CFD against wind tunnel measurements and overall simulation against actual throws and it looks pretty good to me. While turbulence is a bit of an elephant in the room for CFD, and disc flight is dominated by difficult to model phenomena, you're being a bit hysterical when you claim it's all useless. Wind tunnels and flight tests are always the final truth though. It's always funny when some small aircraft designer trusts CFD unconditionally. In my experience even linear static FEA is often done poorly.
@@MiG82au “hysterical?” Weird choice of words. Laminar separation bubbles have been modeled fairly well in Drela’s MSES and XFoil codes, for sure. I use these codes daily. These are 2-d codes applied to extremely specific geometry and even then as an aircraft designer I apply corrections based on over 2 decades of full scale flight testing and wind tunnel testing. Regardless, your statement that laminar separation bubbles have been modeled in cfd is irrelevant because the laminar separation bubble isn’t being modeled in this instance, which is my point. A laminar separation bubble reattaches to the surface only after a mid air transition to turbulent flow. Such a transition is definitely not being modeled here. The results are interesting, but meaningless as related to actual disc golf performance prediction. I don’t know any small aircraft designers that are using Navier-Stokes to model full aircraft geometry. I used NS code (Fluent) back in the day on a single core processor to do stability and control analysis of Spaceship One as we did trade studies of the re-entry configurations. It would take about 40 hours back then to loft and mesh up a new geometry and a couple of days of computational time to run a single angle of attack. This was the rare scenario where the code was applicable because we were operating at 45+ degrees of angle of attack and the flow field could be modeled as fully turbulent and was dominated by separated flow and attached shockwaves. We never used NS on any other aircraft at scaled. Roncz was supporting other Scaled aircraft programs back then using VS-aero, which is a panel code, but I was the only one doing navier stokes. These analyses led to our selection of the novel “shuttle cock” configuration and allowed the program to move forward. The stability and control derivatives that I produced were applied to the flight simulator used to train the pilots as well. Spaceship One went on to win the x-prize and now hangs in the main gallery of the Smithsonian.
@@danielcockerspaniel I've put my foot it a bit telling grandma how to suck eggs, but I still disagree with your assesment that CFD useless for disc coefficients. Just take a look at the 2022 paper I mentioned and see what you think about their analysis. The simulated trajectories matched the sampled trajectories pretty well apart from some distance loss. They also had a pretty good correlation to older wind tunnel data, and who knows how much of the difference is due to inconsistencies in disc production? As for NS at aircraft scale (I didn't say good NS), off the top of my head I can think of Darkaero and Joby Aviation, but the solo homebuild with laughable performance claims slips my mind. Still, you can just Google "homebuilt aircraft CFD" and see that it's happening, for better or worse.
@@danielcockerspaniel I just got a reply on Reddit from one of the authors of that paper and disc flight simulation code. He said he's built a wind tunnel now to avoid "...the bottleneck of 3D scanning and CAD modelling, and the inherent uncertainties of CFD simulations." 20 minutes after I recommended their approach LOL.
@@MiG82au All good. Yeah the DarkAero trust funders are doing some excellent mechanical engineering, but their aerodynamics analysis and design is shoddy.
I DO think the Inner Core is perfectly neutral. I love how most disc golfers when they try a disc rip it full speed no matter what the speed of the disc and make a judgement from that. If it turns on them they call it flippy, or maybe it's a 2 speed disc 🤔.
You fight for standardization and then you don’t follow the science 🤦♂️ we can’t have a standard with human variables(that’s how we get what we have now).
![Two Unusual Ways Disc Golf Discs Are Made [not injection molding]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/v2Z4tCAPtW8/mqdefault.jpg)
I have an idea for you. Currently discs have flight numbers like speed, glide, turn and fade, on for each. What we need, is a table of flight numbers as a function of speed. So, let's say, you make a speed 8 disc, what if you throw it like you would throw a disc with speed 6 or 7, 9 or 10. Because you can throw it faster or slower, some will flip, some will glide.
Mark Rober made a machine that launches frisbees, I'm surprised we haven't utilized something like this yet.
Something that can do any speed, rotation, angle and nose angle would be needed to get really useful data. Testing a decent amount of different speeds at different nose angles and angles while filming from at least above and side would enable creating a system that shows how the disc should fly for any given input parameters. More data collected, the more accurate the results. With a few years of testing many disc models could get an accurate profile, maybe even with wear level, weight and dome as variables. It would be a lot of testing but after several machines are built, I'm sure companies could hire a couple people for a decent money to do testing all day long.
Also after a good amount of data is collected, a standardised system for flight numbers could be developed. I believe this will happen some day, I might even design a machine myself once I have sufficient money, time and skills.
I thought that was Stuff Made Here?
@@yukon_2 they both did but stuff mad here was made for disc golf discs.
I’d say it would only need to launch them consistently, at a reasonably appropriate speed.
@@yukon_2 he had one as well but it was something he held.
I love that you worked with the guys from Løft. I’m loving my inner core just like I love all three of my Loft discs.
Same all three are in the bag and I wondered why they suddenly started selling Inner Core in their shop. I love this collaboration.
Great stuff ::Music:: and very educational. I think flight numbers more come down to what slot needs to be filled to sell a disc and convince you it's not exactly the same as another disc you already own. But your assessment seems fair and accurate
#imanoob 🤣
I reeeeally like the idea of having a ton of people that actually throw the disc vote on what they think the flight numbers should be
this is what doomsday discs does. if you're a 'contributor/team member' you get into a chat/sheet where people beta test discs
I'm a nobody but I agree with the final numbers completely. I personally don't think it has a -1 turn, so I think this is perfect. Love this disc. Just got in my two extra seconds not too long ago.
My biggest issue was how light the first runs were put out at. I didn't respond to the survey because I very much didn't feel good about giving an opinion based on what could be in the future, a stock 170+ disc. Mine was 166 and i heard others got even lighter.
Also, I'd love to know what Loft takes into account the average amount of spin a person puts on a disc. Weight distribution of the plate to the edge of the rim theoretically changes stability in flight based on centrifugal force.
To sign off so i don't sound so negative; genuinely, i love what you guys are doing and keep putting out the best DG content on youtube!
1:16 hole 7 at Paco! One of my favorite drives and one of my three aces.
Been waiting for this video for a LONG time - thank you ❤
Got my first ace this weekend with your disc! I love it!!
Thanks! Awesome that you not only put in all the work and thought, but that you also addressed the whole issue of flight numbers and the arbitrary assignment of them by each manufacturer
Just popped in to say what's up. Im using the Inner Core as an approach disk. Can't wait for more Trash Panda discs.
science and math and disc golf is a sublime combination.
TH-cam algo kicked you out...just catching up now. I agree with your flight numbers and I'm glad you did so much testing and took many factors into consideration. Still waiting for that Grip6 disc throwing robot! Apparently MVP is working on one too!
Joseph here. Thanks for shedding light on a subjectmany of us take for granted, but have no concept of the science involved! Received a two pack of your seconds a while ago and am wanting to test them out. However, elevation can be a factor for another reason. We got over 8 inches (snow) last night (7,200' elevation) and I don't want to lose one!
Jesse and the trash panda team are gonna change everything about disc manufacturing....and im here for it!
I like how you had 2 over mold rim discs in the comparison!
In the future when releasing a disc in the winter it might be helpful to wait a few months before you do a survey. I was only able to throw a few times in deep snow at elevation during sub freezing temps before the survey came out. However, even with the lousy weather I knew this disc would make the bag. It's fantastic!
Great point Sean! Thanks 🤘
@TrashPandaDiscGolf totally agree with the numbers too. Plus that's a cool way of deciding the numbers. Any idea how consistent each run will be with the first run?
Yeah the only reason I didn't reply to the survey was because I still haven't thrown mine
@ryankuisti oof. Hopefully you get to soon. It's a pretty cool disc!
Thx for the explanation at the end. I was about to write something about that. ^^ But it explains it and I can live with that (having not thrown my brand new Inner Cores I have received today, I have not data whatsoever anyway. ^^)
Crazy to see the variety of answers for the flight numbers. I've been comparing the inner core to the Lat64 Spike(4,3,-1,1), which i've been throwing for over a decade, and its noticeably faster and more over stable. Cool to see a breakdown of your process though! Flight numbers have always been more of a guideline really.
after 2 aces with the inner core and a few painful chain outs I have to say that these flight numbers are awesome. I also have to say that I love this disc and it will have a forever home in my bag.
Incredible TJ 👏
I have finally been able to order the inner core and I got 2. Can't wait to get them!
Teaching me things about disc. You fit role Alton Brown did for me and cooking.
Oh and just a side fyi, i have one of the first (keychain) molds and it has a considerable puddle top and is my best understable putter! Your inner core flight numbers i think are spot on and the clear one i have is the same but with a (-3) turn! So sweet!!! Especially simce i dont have a forehand! I cant wait for your midrange!!
9:39 love the "music!" ;)
Thanks, this is really interesting! The current flight rating system is truly unlogical and it all starts with the fact that no one knows what the different speeds really are.
For our first disc we used a combination of player feedback, subjective truth-telling and arm wrestling. Maybe that’s why our first disc have flight ratings for three different speeds now.
🤣
I Just received two inner core one week ago and i made few rounds with it. I want to compare it to the pure as I am Putting with medium pure and also throwing them a lot.
According to the Numbers on the pure your Numbers on the inner core are fitting for me.
My experience:
Little Bit less speed to the pure
Little little bit less glide to the pure
Bit more understable to the pure.
I am looking foorward how they will fligh after some more tree and of course basket hits.
You are doing a great Job.
Greetings from Germany
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback Alex!
The way the disc flew to others like the Nova or the Pure both discs I have seen thrown before by people it is true to those discs. Another good one was from Discraft the Buzzz not in speed but in the flight shape of the flight is really similar to this disc (the Panda discs Puter) and yes, I have seen the disc thrown in the Black Hills on a course to make the assessment myself.
Weights and plastics make a molds flight numbers very so much. I typically track my own flight #s in an app called my disc bag in how I see them
the computational fluid dynamics is legit
!
All right, so I have to admit Jesse that yes, I think there needs to be some standardization in flight numbers. Honestly, I think that's something that should be regulated by the PGA but I like where you're going with in terms of the science. I think all of your methods made absolute sense in comparison to one another and how you remove the human element. Also, I'm a fairly big fan of loft because of their scientific approach, so I'm glad that you can partner with them to do the simulations. I think that was a brilliant idea. In fact, i would say that if you were going to look at enforcing anything and bringing it up to the PDGA as a whole, I think that mom should be the ones to spearhead the beginning of that because of the way that they designed their business using those digital models
What CFD did they run? Professional aerodynamicist here and disc golfer. Would love to learn more.
Just one question! Why are you so awesome?!
Love the content, love the inner core, cant wait for your next video!!
awesome work 💪
Fun fact, the arbitrary subjective assignment of seemingly important numbers isn't unique to disc manufacturing. You know the treadwear rating on your car's tires? Entirely arbitrary and product-line-relative within each manufacturer. Definitely appreciate the scientific approach and hope that it's not too late for disc golf to adopt some standards (and a 2-way level-ground average for future distance records).
Ive always though that the pdga should determine flight numbers. Like you as the developer you can reccomend what you think they will be but in the end the company that approves discs should be the determinig factor. Currently we dont have a device that can throw discs on any path you want so until we do they should all be thrown at the same speed "say 60mph" with a similar release many times and base it on that. It would also be awesome if companies would release high and low speed flight as well as that changes based on experience and lower speed flight could be more for beginners/ams where high speed would be pro. Honestly though with all the money the pdga gets they need to develop a machine that throws discs. It shouldnt be hard.
Look at that Inner Core Heaven!!!
In the end you are also having to compare how it flys with everyone else’s arbitrary numbers. Computation fluid dynamics is great if everyone used it with the same parameters. But since most are just chosen numbers, going with a consensus will probably give you the most accurate true value. Just next time don’t bias the results by providing what you think the numbers should be. Similar to how the average of all the guesses of jellybeans in a large jar is surprisingly accurate, like usually within 1% of the actual number. So your numbers are probably more accurate than most companies.
It's interesting to see the process of determining flight numbers first hand. It only seems natural to standardize flight numbers/ratings with all PDGA certified discs and I'm surprised we have yet to set a flight rating standard on all new moulds. The science part does seem to be way more tedious when comparing it to just having an experienced opinion on the numbers.
So when you were doing simulations with the Loft did you simulate crazy stuff like, what if we throw this 90mph on a giant anny line. Does it simulate distance at all or just give you data concerning flight numbers?
One big problem with flight numbers I think is the variability in stability based on throwing speed. If you throw a destroyer but don't have the arm speed the numbers won't feel true. Same goes with something like a buzz, the higher the speed you throw it at, the more understable it is going to fly. I feel like humans can't gage well enough the speed at which they throw so robots or sensors would be needed for accurate tests. Love your videos and mission btw, keep it up!
Yeah on top of that the spin of the disc affects the turn just as much, and it's even harder to gauge. Combination of those 2 facts makes turn the least reliable flight number by a mile, I have discs with -3 that go into roller and -2 that I will never ever turn even an inch, that makes no sense from scientific point of view and some standarization has to come at some point. Or just do it like discraft and don't put flight numbers on the disc, I'm a fan.
Don't they make algorighms that throws discs? I recall this from a guy who made a mechanical arm and tried to use the trebuchet motion to assist in launching a disc. If I remember correctly, he designed a program to throw thousands of discs.
just got my inner core 166g i have a noodle arm and throw a stand still do to age old injurys my off tee with a fairway about200ish 1st throw with ic 210 flat and straight next throws (6) all within 5-10 feet each other did hyzer holds very well andhyzer same all about 180-200 ft did some putting with and felt great in the hand and for me did little beter then usal so far great disc lookin to get another will let u know more after i play a round or two with it
You can't trust the computer completely, but on the other hand if you compare to existing discs then you should only compare to discs that everyone agrees are marked correctly, and which discs are those?
Great vid.
It's an incredibly neutral disc. Numbers? What numbers? Wait, it replaced two other molds in my bag, so 2. So far... All kidding aside: thanks for sharing this. Interesting to see how the other participants answered.
Jesse can you show me your preferred grip for the Inner Core? Also wanted to tell you that my very very very first throw with my factory second inner core was an upshot on the first hole of my local course, and it was an 80 foot throw in, not putt, for birdie!
Unreal!!! Sounds incredible Andres 👏 Not sure you should follow my lead on the grip, but I power grip everything 👍
Trash panda changing the plant and the science behind flight number
Okay, I love this...buuuuuuuut...WHO ties their hoodie strings like that!? 🤔
I remember hearing on an episode of Patent Pending from Jomez that Grip6 was creating a machine to throw discs in a repeatable manner. As an engineer I got super excited about that. Did you reach out to them?
Great recall! Hoping we can make something happen for a future project 👌
I was thinking about how to design one and realised there are another two factors that would be difficult to control: atmosphere and ground play. Ideally you'd test indoors with HVAC off and on artificial grass, otherwise you get uncontrollable scatter in the data. Still, it would be an improvement over the current standard of disc reviews which is a single throw of each type.
I'm 6:47 into this, and are you Thinking about what has been tried by Peter Stripol? Like a Machine to Throw Discs? Even Simon wants to do it... I'm Here to help come up with one also. But, im Broke Vet working at wally world.
I've always heard to consider one's level of play. A new player might not handle a higher speed disc like a pro. The flight charts don't factor that in. Also... how will weight difference alter the flight of any given disc?
Slick edits
Thanks Brian! (especially at the 9:28 mark lol)
But the whole reason a disc flies Is because of the rotations of the disc. The higher the rpm, the better the glide is going to be. The variation in the estimated glide is the difference in people's ability to spin the disc. RPM is also going to affect turn and fade, more rpms, more turn, fewer rpms, harder fade. This is such a fun topic to chew on, it needs beer and pizza.
I'm probably in the minority but I think we should throw out the old flight number system and just write the coefficient of lift drag and pitching moment on the discs. That way you can know (in a rigorously proven way) how the disc will interact with the air
You can't write those on a disc because they're curves that vary with Angle of Attack, and the AoA varies throughout the flight (that's why we can get turn *and* fade during a flight). I suppose you could standardise 2 or 3 angles at which you provide the data and then you'd only have 6 or 9 values. Still, converting those into a flight is tricky because they interact. High lift reduces AoA, high drag makes the disc reach high AoA sooner and so on. Having the curves would be an excellent starting point for generating more accurate flight numbers or a new simplified characteristics system though.
@@MiG82au I think that right now we have a broken system (obviously lol). Right now we have mostly arbitrary numbers that people learn how to relate to on their own. I think that if we started using a single standardized of AoA people would be able to relate more accurately to a disc before purchase. Plus then I could nerd out about the new system
@@jacobdecatur2230 oh yeah, it's super bad. I had a glow Insanity that was rated -2 turn but flew like my 0 3 discs. I know that that's because the glow plastic ends up being a different shape, but then what's the point of the completely wrong numbers?
Would love for flt numbers to be an ISO.
At 9:29 I think you accidentally left a text box to queue music during your editing process :P
great video though! might need to try out this inner core.
Wait.. Hold On.. You are, "Trash Panda"?? Like, the Trash Panda??
Wouldn’t you want to throw with a launcher machine to compare to existing disc numbers? I guess it is all subjective.
I'm shocked that airspeed, MOI, angular momentum and gyroscopic precession were not mentioned once in this video.
So basically, the computer analysis was with a non spinning disc?
None of those except airspeed affect the aerodynamic forces which is what the CFD was calculating. The calculated flight profiles do take airspeed, precession and angular momentum into account along with the aerodynamic coefficients. Spin has been measured to have negligible effect on disc aerodynamics (Potts, 2005) and only affects the rate of roll.
@@MiG82au spin affects precession.
If I want less turn, I throw with less spin.
@@davelopez9161 Yes, everyone knows that angular momentum is the product of MoI and spin rate. What's your point though?
My point was that if the flight characteristic of a disc is to be modeled by a program, then there's more to it than just the aerodynamics of the disc design and nose angle.
We still do not know at what velocity and angular velocity the disc must be moving in order to obtain the other flight numbers.
I applaud Jesse for doing this.
I believe this is a first step.
I hope more manufacturers start taking this approach.
@@davelopez9161 I clearly told you that the CFD is just generating aerodynamic coefficients and that there's a second simulation with spin and mass for generating the flight path.
You haven't found a glaring oversight.
i think the first thumbnail was a bit better
I just wanna know how to buy a Trash Panda hat
i want standarization. just got some mvp catalysts. they are almost as stable than my Cloudbreakers :P lmaoooo being -2/2 hahahah
*Insert Jesse Pinkman meme* Yeah! Science! But seriously, standardization of flight numbers using actual data points from a simulation protocol like Loft uses would make the most sense. At least then, people would be comparing their personal variability against a closer-to-static standard, across all manufacturers.
i just want a machine that every company uses that has to be calibrated for flight numbers.
Bruh... your in Denver.... I don't trust any flight numbers IN or FROM Denver.
I believe the level of precision you’re claiming “speed of 2 or 3” etc is fine, and no better or worse than what other manufacturers are stating but I take issue with your claims of “simulates exactly how the disc would fly…”. Maybe the folks at Loft told you this but it’s nonsense. The folks at Loft should have explained to you the severe limitations of CFD for this application.
It’s way too involved to explain here but it comes down to turbulence models, lack of a boundary layer transition, highly 3-dimensional flow, and grid dependency.
Ask Loft what their y+ value was. Ask them to show you their solutions were grid independent. Ask them to show you the difference between solutions when running fully turbulent vs fully laminar boundary layer models and how they account for the existence of both in the real world.
No matter how careful your model is, or how fine your mesh is, at these Reynolds numbers there is a laminar separation bubble that exists on the suction (upper) side of the disc at the normal operating range of nose angles and the position and size of this bubble completely dominates the stability characteristics of the disc. The bubble also to a lesser extent influences the drag of the disc. Your CFD model is never going to correctly predict the characteristics of that separation bubble. No chance. I wouldn’t even say CFD is useful for predicting trends between various molds, let alone absolute results for a single disc.
CFD results with pretty colors are impressive and look convincing but it doesn’t mean the results are at all based in reality.
Ultimately the only way to get flight numbers is exactly what you did, compare one disc to another in flight, with a large sample size to account for variations of a given mold. Best wishes.
I can't speak for this simulation, but laminar separation bubbles have been modelled on airfoils so it is possible. "Disc golf trajectory modelling combining computational fuid
dynamics and rigid body dynamics" (2022) validates their CFD against wind tunnel measurements and overall simulation against actual throws and it looks pretty good to me. While turbulence is a bit of an elephant in the room for CFD, and disc flight is dominated by difficult to model phenomena, you're being a bit hysterical when you claim it's all useless. Wind tunnels and flight tests are always the final truth though. It's always funny when some small aircraft designer trusts CFD unconditionally. In my experience even linear static FEA is often done poorly.
@@MiG82au “hysterical?” Weird choice of words. Laminar separation bubbles have been modeled fairly well in Drela’s MSES and XFoil codes, for sure. I use these codes daily. These are 2-d codes applied to extremely specific geometry and even then as an aircraft designer I apply corrections based on over 2 decades of full scale flight testing and wind tunnel testing. Regardless, your statement that laminar separation bubbles have been modeled in cfd is irrelevant because the laminar separation bubble isn’t being modeled in this instance, which is my point. A laminar separation bubble reattaches to the surface only after a mid air transition to turbulent flow. Such a transition is definitely not being modeled here.
The results are interesting, but meaningless as related to actual disc golf performance prediction.
I don’t know any small aircraft designers that are using Navier-Stokes to model
full aircraft geometry. I used NS code (Fluent) back in the day on a single core processor to do stability and control analysis of Spaceship One as we did trade studies of the re-entry configurations. It would take about 40 hours back then to loft and mesh up a new geometry and a couple of days of computational time to run a single angle of attack. This was the rare scenario where the code was applicable because we were operating at 45+ degrees of angle of attack and the flow field could be modeled as fully turbulent and was dominated by separated flow and attached shockwaves. We never used NS on any other aircraft at scaled. Roncz was supporting other Scaled aircraft programs back then using VS-aero, which is a panel code, but I was the only one doing navier stokes. These analyses led to our selection of the novel “shuttle cock” configuration and allowed the program to move forward. The stability and control derivatives that I produced were applied to the flight simulator used to train the pilots as well. Spaceship One went on to win the x-prize and now hangs in the main gallery of the Smithsonian.
@@danielcockerspaniel I've put my foot it a bit telling grandma how to suck eggs, but I still disagree with your assesment that CFD useless for disc coefficients. Just take a look at the 2022 paper I mentioned and see what you think about their analysis. The simulated trajectories matched the sampled trajectories pretty well apart from some distance loss. They also had a pretty good correlation to older wind tunnel data, and who knows how much of the difference is due to inconsistencies in disc production?
As for NS at aircraft scale (I didn't say good NS), off the top of my head I can think of Darkaero and Joby Aviation, but the solo homebuild with laughable performance claims slips my mind. Still, you can just Google "homebuilt aircraft CFD" and see that it's happening, for better or worse.
@@danielcockerspaniel I just got a reply on Reddit from one of the authors of that paper and disc flight simulation code. He said he's built a wind tunnel now to avoid "...the bottleneck of 3D scanning and CAD modelling, and the inherent uncertainties of CFD simulations." 20 minutes after I recommended their approach LOL.
@@MiG82au All good. Yeah the DarkAero trust funders are doing some excellent mechanical engineering, but their aerodynamics analysis and design is shoddy.
I DO think the Inner Core is perfectly neutral. I love how most disc golfers when they try a disc rip it full speed no matter what the speed of the disc and make a judgement from that. If it turns on them they call it flippy, or maybe it's a 2 speed disc 🤔.
I’d just like to see it 175g as possible
Music!
music
😅🤦♂️
Music
I don't think human error is the right term, more like human variability, not really error
You fight for standardization and then you don’t follow the science 🤦♂️ we can’t have a standard with human variables(that’s how we get what we have now).
Would have really appreciated this video BEFORE the disc dropped...
So you did the science then made a subjective decision anyway? Seems abit hypocritical?
music
music