1.7?

Bangrrr · Post by **Bangrrr** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:12 am

Ok, so call me a tad too bored or anal whichever suits your fancy.....I have taken every disc in my bag and all of my spares to the certified scales and weighed them.

Of all the discs I have weighed, Discraft has been FAR and AWAY the most accurate. They have all been within .5 grams of the specified weight.

The newer Gateway stuff I weighed was within 1 gram.
The OLD Wizard that I have (That has chunks missing out of it) says 175, it came up at like 177.8 on the scales.....

DGA was within 2 grams for the most part. Except for one REALLY domey Squall that I have that claims to be 170-172 and it actually only weighs 166.2....

All the 175 Innova Discs I've weighed were 175-178.

Just a little look into the numbers written on the back of your discs......

Schoen-hopper · Post by **Schoen-hopper** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:45 pm

What is the FLX test? Just how much more dense could the plastic be made?

I agree: 200g discs don't go farther now because the discs are huge. Overstable discs would also be a little more overstable. How about a 200g Sidewinder though? I bet it would bomb in any wind. The real advantage with any heavy disc, though, would be in control. I think Ron explained it pretty well.

By the way Ron, that was a purple pro line Rouge Wave I was talking about earlier. It turns over LATE in the flight. Brand new disc. I bet it would be a good roller.

Schoen-hopper · Post by **Schoen-hopper** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:22 pm

I suppose the disc wouldn't have to be more dense to add g's to the weight. The flight plate could be thicker. How many grams could be added with the same mold? If you did add to the outside perimeter, what slows a disc down more: Added height or added width? Adding weight to the rim would have a different effect to the flight than adding it to the flight plate.

mrsenortyler · Post by **mrsenortyler** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:41 pm

I think that adding it to the rim would make a better roller for sure, and possibly a better flyer. Adding weight to the outside of the rim would greatly increase the rotational inertia, making the disc want to spin more. It would take more to chuck the disc also.

mrsenortyler · Post by **mrsenortyler** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:50 pm

Schoen-hopper wrote:
The number one reason is that heavier discs are more predictable. Accuracy is much more important than distance in disc golf.

I see what you mean.

I agree that heavier discs would be more accurate, and being accurate is more important that distance. But If I am looking for accuracy, I don't go looking for a 205g wraith, I look for a 170g Firebird, or a Predator if I threw discraft.

Anakha · Post by **Anakha** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:53 pm

mrsenortyler wrote:
Schoen-hopper wrote:
The number one reason is that heavier discs are more predictable. Accuracy is much more important than distance in disc golf.

I see what you mean.

I agree that heavier discs would be more accurate, and being accurate is more important that distance. But If I am looking for accuracy, I don't go looking for a 205g wraith, I look for a 170g Firebird, or a Predator if I threw discraft.

Ha, imagine throwing a half pound Pred. DG would start needing a divot tool.

Schoen-hopper · Post by **Schoen-hopper** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:16 pm

mrsenortyler wrote:
Schoen-hopper wrote:
The number one reason is that heavier discs are more predictable. Accuracy is much more important than distance in disc golf.

I see what you mean.

I agree that heavier discs would be more accurate, and being accurate is more important that distance. But If I am looking for accuracy, I don't go looking for a 205g wraith, I look for a 170g Firebird, or a Predator if I threw discraft.

That's just it though. We tell players to throw lighter weights, so that's what they do. I think we should encourage players to use more understable discs. These are good for both distance and shots that need to stay straight.

However, MOST golf shots allow room for hyzering and the more overtable discs like the (predator or the firebird) have a very predictable flight. The heavier the weight, the more predictable. If a heavy pred won't go far enough, I wouldn't go with a lighter weight because you'll probably loose accuracy and distance. Rather, switch to a straighter disc. I agree with Smitty that most shots can be thrown with the overstable discs, but they do require more power. The question is... what is YOUR overstable disc? What is your straight disc?

mrsenortyler · Post by **mrsenortyler** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:46 pm

Schoen-hopper wrote:
That's just it though. We tell players to throw lighter weights, so that's what they do. I think we should encourage players to use more understable discs.

It has to be a mixture of both though. Since lighter discs in the same mold are more understable for more powerful throwers, those same lighter discs are the right amount of stableness for a weaker thrower.

Some shots you just need to hyzer. When I play hole #1 at Cherry St. in Winfield, I need a disc that will hyzer around that big tree. I can't throw my valkyrie, (it turns right) I can't throw my teebird (it goes straight) I can't throw my Wraith, (it goes too far unless it's on long pin setting) I can't throw a 175g Firebird that far, so I have a 168g firebird. I throw it, not strong enough to turn it over, it goes the distance with a very predictable finish.

But you are right. Many new players go out and get the newest most popular discs out there. Whatever the big guns throw. Flicks, Surges, Firebirds, and Avengers. These are obviously not discs that beginners should be learning to throw with. Players need to learn their throwing ability, and know what discs will turn or go straight for them.

Schoen-hopper · Post by **Schoen-hopper** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:21 pm

I actually had a 171 firebird that seemed like the perfect stability for a lot of holes, so I can see what you are saying.

While I wouldn't recommend this to players with a decent amount of versatility on release, you can carry a disc for about any situation.

I used to carry like 28 discs. I only carry about 21 now and sometimes less. The ones I got rid of were discs or different types that were roughly the same stability. For the discs I use now though, each one has a rank of stability in relation to the rest. Rather than having to calculate a bunch of things on release, I just have to pick the right disc and throw a low hyzer. The disc determines the rest.

With as many discs are out there, you can carry not only different stabilities, but different speeds as well.

I think having more discs can definitely hurt you if don't know them all well or don't choose them wisely. Having what you need in the bag can be a great thing though. I never like having to throw a shot I'm not confident with because I'm not carrying the right disc for the best shot.

disclizard · Post by **disclizard** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:27 am

Ok for some one that has a fairly short arm I thought I would chime in.

For those that have a long throw a very over stable disc is good for you because you can straiten it out for most of its flight. I notice that when you throw real hard on a log hole your over stable discs do what my under stable discs do for me. I use avengers for just about every drive . I'm going to use Oak for my examples. When I throw at Oak most of the holes go to the left so I drive with my avenger If I need a disc to go right like on the short tee on 18 I will use my SS avenger cause its less stable for me and I can turn it left and it won't straiten out untill about half or three quarters of the way through its flite. I do use a over stable disc once and awhile like on the short hole # 7 I use a reeper. Thats only because it turns so sharp to the left no matter if I throw it flat or not. On 10 if I get to close to the road on my drive than I also pull out the reeper . doesnt make sence though cause the road is to the left. Untill...what I do is flick it over the road cause I am confedent that even if I screw up my release it will still come back in to the right. I dont flick often enough so when I do I use a disc I know is way to over stable for me.

Back to what I think the whole thread is about . Is there a big differance between a 1.7 and a 1.8 I think there could be just like there is a big differance be tween one 1.7 and another 1.7 even of the same make and design. Why ? Weight is one, but I think confidence is another . I have two avengers I carry and they don't get used the same amount because I trust one more than the other. Even though one gets used more and more beat up,it seems more predictable to me. the other even though its heavyer and newer it seem less stable which meen I flip it over alittle now and then . I think its just my confidence in it though. So yes their can be a differance in a 1.8 and a 1.8 "It's you" your the differance.

disclizard · Post by **disclizard** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:32 am

I'm sorry for the spelling but I can not type for s@!!%t. I do hope some one can understand that though.

gippy · Post by **gippy** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:37 am

Differnt runs of discs are differnt as well I have 4 CE eagles 1 1st run 2 2nd runs and a later run The 1st is a stable pig will finish hard right every time(RHBH) the 2 2nds are slightly understable in the frist of their flight then come back but,straight and the later run will do whatever i want straight left,flip over with slight come back at end of flight. All are 175 and well kept for 6-7yr old discs they arent beat by any means so I would say the 1.7 and 1.8 could def be a differnce and it could be a mental thing as well just cuz it says it on the disc.
I have CE Vals the same way a 1st run 171 that will flip a mile and then a 175 that comes all the way back like my 2nd run eagles go figure.

MY 2 cents but i dont know discrafts disc either so

carlbren21 · Post by **carlbren21** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:54 pm

Bangrrr wrote:I have taken every disc in my bag and all of my spares to the certified scales and weighed them.

Of all the discs I have weighed, Discraft has been FAR and AWAY the most accurate. They have all been within .5 grams of the specified weight.

Does that have anything to do with the 3 gram range they give you (170-172g)?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! I bet one of the three WOULD be pretty accurate!

Anakha · Post by **Anakha** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:50 pm

disclizard wrote:
Back to what I think the whole thread is about .

Actually, I made this thread just to find out what was up with the stamp...

Schoen-hopper · Post by **Schoen-hopper** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:38 pm

1.7?

I need a 3D picture of the disc flight. As a function of time to reference speed.

A number with a decimal just isn't very superstitious. You can't count 1.7 in everything you see, like 23.