That YouTube Destroyer video

[Plastic Thunder]

So as I do from time to time I will watch the old Youtube and I ran across one about selecting your Destroyer. When it started, I figured I was going to lose 30 minutes of my life I wished I had back. Nope, nice piece of work. I listened, dug out my Destroyers I had not sold off. He had measurements, spreadsheets, and information and he was spot on.

I always looked at the dome as my point of reference for stability along with weight. In hindsight I admit my method was flawed. The rim thing he pointed out is pretty solid. I then tested his theory, pretty solid again.

So, where he points out Innova built up the mold to deal with the patient numbers, I found my Beast and Wraiths show the same work. Now I did not look to see if there was evidence of multiple molds but the marks where grinding was done was present. This is easy to see on new discs. The darker the colors make it pop a bit more.

Now for those of you who feel you have to buy a preflight Destroyer to get that true flying jewel, well not anymore. Just buy one with the proper production variation(flaw) on the wing to accomplish your goal.

Also, I am not going to place a link here, someone else can. I know I should but I am too lazy.

If you can find one with a wing like a Roadrunner and one like a Teebird your golden. Ok, you might need on in the middle and then you golden. Yeah, 3 Destroyer and a putter, that's my new bag.

 

[Putt for D'oh]

https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133490

Already a bit of a thread about it. Confirms a lot of stuff I've thought I'd experienced and opened my eyes to a bit more.

I've started evaluating a lot of other molds this way as well.

 

[XC_Eddy]

Yeah, I've found this info to be true for my wraiths and Teebirds. Can't believe it took us this long to figure this stuff out. Haven't done the research, but I do believe there is a correlation between PLH and the shape of the wing. It would make sense for those two things to be related.

 

[ru4por]

Apparently too lazy to search for an existing thread as well.

Here is the link. That way this is no longer a useless thread, that makes no sense.

 

[Twmccoy]

I think good star Destroyers can be found in any run. You just may have to do some looking and fondle a few discs to find them.

I have that Destroyer video in my queue for Youtube, but haven't watched it yet.

 

[Nova P]

Pro Destroyer > Star Destroyer for almost every single person reading this thread.

(I guarantee the one exception will quote this post and rage reply.)

 

[Twmccoy]

Pro Destroyer > Star Destroyer for almost every single person reading this thread.

(I guarantee the one exception will quote this post and rage reply.)

I won't disagree. My only problem with pro plastic is that it loses stability too quickly and gets beat.

If longevity is necessary, buy star Destroyers. If you want immediate great flights and don't throw 400'+, buy pros.

I personally have a star Destroyer thats over a decade old and still flies great. If I'd thrown a pro as often as I've thrown this star it would have died like 9 years ago.

 

[Moose33]

Pro Destroyer > Star Destroyer for almost every single person reading this thread.

(I guarantee the one exception will quote this post and rage reply.)

Hahaha, your right.

I have Had Destroyers in Pro/Star/Champion and am partial to the Champion(glidless hateful turds I think someone on here has called them) and the PMB Star, but the Pro ones are darn good for BH. If they get too beat in they turn a lot, but a lot of players like that.

 

[SaROCaM]

Pro Destroyer > Star Destroyer for almost every single person reading this thread.

This is true for me, with a couple exceptions that I had to find among the stacks. One is a 167g Star Destroyer with a flat wing and a flatter top. The other is a 168g Star Destroyer with a a convex Roadrunner-like lower wing and a big pop top. Both are embossed McBeths.

I generally stick with a variety of Thunderbirds (Champ and Pro) for my distance drivers. Only get them out to 350' (as well as my seasoned Champ Teebirds) on flat ground. If I'm throwing a Destroyer for any relatively longer distance, it's one of my Pros or one of these.

 

[HeavyCritters]

Apparently too lazy to search for an existing thread as well.

Here is the link. That way this is no longer a useless thread, that makes no sense.

This was extremely helpful.

Thank you.

 

[sidewinder22]

Pro Destroyer > Star Destroyer for almost every single person reading this thread.

(I guarantee the one exception will quote this post and rage reply.)

Almost every single person reading this thread should not be throwing Destroyers! :wall:

 

[SaROCaM]

Almost every single person reading this thread should not be throwing Destroyers! :wall:

Interested in your (and others') opinion on who should/when should someone throw Destroyers? And for those who shouldn't, what should they be throwing? Especially interested in what to use for learning to throw distance drivers.

For example, if I'm throwing Teebirds 350' then should I be working on getting them to 400' or throwing something say speed 9 to that distance? What about distance plus wind considerations?

I've largely avoided throwing above speed 9 until last year when I said screw it, tried some Destroyers and Shrykes, and shaved strokes on holes that I hadn't gotten previously.

I have gotten good results with Pro Destroyers (and the Stars I described earlier) but I am also all for process over results if it will help in the long run. However it is hard to ignore good results (that aren't just flukes.)

 

[Twmccoy]

Interested in your (and others') opinion on who should/when should someone throw Destroyers? And for those who shouldn't, what should they be throwing? Especially interested in what to use for learning to throw distance drivers.

For example, if I'm throwing Teebirds 350' then should I be working on getting them to 400' or throwing something say speed 9 to that distance? What about distance plus wind considerations?

I've largely avoided throwing above speed 9 until last year when I said screw it, tried some Destroyers and Shrykes, and shaved strokes on holes that I hadn't gotten previously.

I have gotten good results with Pro Destroyers (and the Stars I described earlier) but I am also all for process over results if it will help in the long run. However it is hard to ignore good results (that aren't just flukes.)

If you're throwing Teebirds 350' you'll have the arm for Destroyers. Plus, you'll probably notice significant distance gains going from a Teebird to a Destroyer. Possibly out near 400'.

This argument has been going on for years. That new/weak armed players shouldn't throw wide rimmed, overstable drivers. I see both sides of the argument. If you throw 300' or less, a Destroyer won't do anything for you except hyzer sharply. You'll never flatten it out. However, there's no law anywhere that says weak arms CAN'T throw Destroyers. If they want to use them for overstable discs, so be it. Theory says that if you can't flatten a driver out and get a little turn out of it that its too much disc for you. You SHOULD look for a driver that gives you -1 turn and 3 fade, regardless of speed.

I know when I was a new player I'd try anything at least once. I think trial and error is part of the game. I remember throwing a Monster in 2005 and immediately knowing it was way too much disc for my repertoire. Besides, trying (and failing) to throw a disc properly gives you motivation to improve. I know it did for me. If I throw a beefy disc it makes me want to improve to the point I can throw it adequately.

Only you can decide which discs give you the best results on the course. New players should never be afraid to try something different. Even if only for a few throws. The more discs you try, the more likely you are to find a mold you like.

 

[XC_Eddy]

Interested in your (and others') opinion on who should/when should someone throw Destroyers? And for those who shouldn't, what should they be throwing? Especially interested in what to use for learning to throw distance drivers.

For example, if I'm throwing Teebirds 350' then should I be working on getting them to 400' or throwing something say speed 9 to that distance? What about distance plus wind considerations?

I've largely avoided throwing above speed 9 until last year when I said screw it, tried some Destroyers and Shrykes, and shaved strokes on holes that I hadn't gotten previously.

I have gotten good results with Pro Destroyers (and the Stars I described earlier) but I am also all for process over results if it will help in the long run. However it is hard to ignore good results (that aren't just flukes.)

It's a disc golf argument as old as time itself. Some will say that you should avoid destroyers until you can throw putters 350', mids 400', and Teebirds 450'.

I find that take a tad extreme, but really only a tad. It depends on what your goals are. If you are trying to develop 500'+ of power, then waiting until you hit the above benchmarks would be helpful. If you are trying to score the lowest scores you possibly can today with your current skillset, then throw those Shrykes and Destroyers.

The main thing is not to throw plastic you have no business throwing and develop bad habits that are hard to break. If you have to force that Destroyer over on a flex line to get it past 300', stop throwing that thing because learning how to throw a Teebird on a flat golf line that far will be much better for your developing form long term.

Fwiw, I don't have 400'+ of power so I don't throw Destroyers. On a good rip I can a Teebird out to 325'+ and a Wraith maybe another 25'. I imagine if I had a relatively understable Destroyer I could maybe push it a little farther than my Wraiths, but I'd have a hard time controlling it. If it's an open shot field shot with plenty of room for a flex shot I can throw a Shryke or a Sidewinder farther than Wraiths, but it's harder to control.

 

[Hampstead]

Got to love the "experts".

 

[lenfantsuave]

Throw whatever is fun for you. I like destroyers and they're fun to throw . Sue me.

 

[dorseymatt]

For a lot of players, I doubt a Destroyer is really helping them, per se, but if they like throwing it, why not? Most people don't actually strive to get better at this game--they just enjoy playing. If they're throwing it 260 feet or whatever, they're probably going to get the same thing out of any stable disc speed 7 through 12. So I guess have at it if it feels good and they're satisfied. At least it should be able to handle the wind.

 

[sidewinder22]

Interested in your (and others') opinion on who should/when should someone throw Destroyers? And for those who shouldn't, what should they be throwing? Especially interested in what to use for learning to throw distance drivers.

For example, if I'm throwing Teebirds 350' then should I be working on getting them to 400' or throwing something say speed 9 to that distance? What about distance plus wind considerations?

I've largely avoided throwing above speed 9 until last year when I said screw it, tried some Destroyers and Shrykes, and shaved strokes on holes that I hadn't gotten previously.

I have gotten good results with Pro Destroyers (and the Stars I described earlier) but I am also all for process over results if it will help in the long run. However it is hard to ignore good results (that aren't just flukes.)

I only carry one disc faster than a PD or RR, which is an old beat up 155g blizzard Boss. Faster discs are less shapable on throwing lines and much less forgiving of angle errors. Their swing weight is also much heavier which is why I like lighter weights.

I used to carry 150g Teebirds for max distance, those bomb when your technique is sound, but found it was limiting because of the ceiling height needed and wind pushing it around. 150g Firebirds and Banger GTs also go surprisingly far and fun to throw.

 

[2naphish]

I only carry one disc faster than a PD or RR, which is an old beat up 155g blizzard Boss. Faster discs are less shapable on throwing lines and much less forgiving of angle errors. Their swing weight is also much heavier which is why I like lighter weights.

I used to carry 150g Teebirds for max distance, those bomb when your technique is sound, but found it was limiting because of the ceiling height needed and wind pushing it around. 150g Firebirds and Banger GTs also go surprisingly far and fun to throw.

this is also exactly what i found personally . i throw drives almost exclusively forehand so rim width is probably less of a factor than it is for backhand throwers. the key for me was finding the correct weight so i got the desired flight pattern and distance for MY throw.

i just turned 60 and a distance bomb for me is right at 320'. i can't throw a new 170+ Star Boss 200' before it meathooks on me. i can however throw a new domey 155 Star Boss 270'. same thing with my ESP Nukes but 159-161 is my sweet spot. seasoning only adds to the glide and distance. i now carry 3 Bosses, 2 Nukes and a Shryke that flies like a longer Roadrunner for me for most if not all drives over 200' on any given course. the funny thing is they fly just like the heavier weights do in the hands of a player with 400'+ power.

with the ease of extra distance i can compete with 80% of the players i run into so i wouldn't discourage any person who can control what they are throwing now from trying a high speed driver. you just have to match the disc to your arm.

 

[lyleoross]

I too saw this video, I think it came up when I was searching for the DGPT live feeds. And I had thought about starting a thread on it, so I'm glad someone else did.

Some things to consider. Think about the hours of arguing over rim height that has gone on here. I've done the rim height experiment and for me, there is no correlation. I'd be interesting to know how the depth of the bevel impacts rim height?

Think about Innova discs, and I'm saying innova because I don't know the other manufacture's discs as well. It doesn't take a whole lot of time to recognize that the Beast has a shallower bevel than the Orc, that the Sidewinder is less shallow than the Valk, which is less shallow than a Thunderbird. It's pretty universal, although not absolute (see below). A long time ago I decided that a more important way to determine stability was the depth of the bevel, but I didn't think to apply it to a single mold type. I am now.

Funny enough, as I was contemplating all this, I ordered a Blizzard Wraith to play around with. It came in and the bevel is positively bulged. The normal Wraith bevel is fairly undercut. I find the variation to not just be there but to be two to three mm in difference. That is an amazing variation.

The depth of the bevel rule isn't absolute. Take the Innova Mystere (I think it is). It has a hugely undercut bevel and yet is listed as very understable (-3 - 2) I think are the turn numbers. I won't say it flies exactly like that for me. I've seen other molds that have a similar undercut that are also understable. The one thing I will note is that on all of those molds, the bevel seems to run parallel to a line that runs center through the disc, edge to edge, before the bevel curves to run to the height of the bevel at the of the bevel, disc centerwise. when the curve happens, it is way more sharp than that curve on more stable discs. That said, I think it is the Lat Spark, a fairly overstable disc, that has the same bevel.

In other words, based on my observation, the undercut vs bulged bevel being an indicator of stability may have relevance within one mold, but not mold to mold.