Disc Golf Course Review - [MVP] MVP Disc Sports (Official Thread) (Part V)

Disc Golf Course Review (https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/index.php)

- Discs (https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=51)

- -

MVP Disc Sports (Official Thread) (Part V) (https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133486)

I'm most excited about the nee Glow that they are going to use now.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Quote:

Originally Posted by l'alcooltue (Post 3631408)

okay so for the last 7 years 10-15 of my volts have always flown the same but apparently if some people on a forum think theirs fly differently it changes reality.

whats your assertion, that you throw the same everytime like robot? and or you have the ability to decide flight numbers off YOUR throw?

theres always been an argument that neutron and proton flew differently in general and its total BS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marmoset (Post 3631485)

Wow, that response seems a little stronger than it should be.

Here is a video I created a month-ish ago. Ignore the "Plasma Volt" label I put on the gray disc. That is a Cosmic Neutron. I also mis-labeled the copper disc, that is Plasma. My bad, really wishing I had gotten those labels right. But you can easily see the flight differences between these discs. They were all brand new when I threw them. The weights aren't very different.

I think the Volts were very similar for a while but the new Cosmic Neutrons are very beefy. Almost "drop your Fireball or Motion" beefy. And this isn't just my Cosmic Neutron, everybody seems to think they are exceptionally overstable for a Volt.
Here is a thought about why they might be beefier:

MVP has been re-cutting/modifying molds so they can run them on their in-house machines. I have heard it said (anecdotally, grain of salt) that the beefier Volts are closer to MVP's original intent for the disc. Maybe they modded the new molds so the Volts fly "like they are supposed to?" Beats me, I have no inside information for this topic.

Even if that explains why the Cosmic Neutrons are so beefy, it doesn't explain why the copper Plasma is so understable. That disc has big turn.

So I don't have enough Volts to verify the "...Neutron and Proton flew differently..." statement. They seem fairly consistent but I don't have a large sample size. Probably only 8 or so and they are probably all from the same runs. My Plasma and Cosmic Neutron are outliers though. Those are definitely different.

If it were up to me, they would all fly like my Proton Volt <3 I have about 10 other Volts but they wouldn't add to the videos content. They are various shades of stability near the Proton in that video.

higher PLH, yeah. I only have 3 but my Proton is the least overstable. My Neutrons are slightly beefier.

I've never bought in that one plastic was beefier than another. One RUN of plastic might be beefier due to the cooling process on the day it was run. But never the plastic itself. It's just plastic. How it's shaped and reacts to force is what impacts flight.

Historically, color of plastic will have as much impact on the flight of a disc as the plastic itself. If you throw Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange, White in Neutron or Proton, you will see as much variation in flight as you will see throwing 1 Neutron and 1 Proton. That's because of the cooling process from day to day.

MVPs getting sneakier at hiding that by making "cosmic" discs so you have no idea what the cooling process was from day to day - they multi-port inject the molds so there's no way to tell if several discs were made at the same time at the same temperature. Hiding their "runs" so to speak. I won't buy Cosmic discs- can't get a read on them - and so much easier to lose in tallgrass and honeysuckle.

Now - all that of course falls back to the mold - if they are tweaking the mold, then the next runs of Proton / Plasma / Fission will also feature whatever changes they made. So if the Cosmic Neutron is beefier - stands to reason the new Proton / Plasma / Fission Volts will also be beefier.

I don't throw the Volt - so I don't really care. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacobpaul81 (Post 3631810)

I'm having a tough time with pretty much all of this, honestly.....

Cooling processes SHOULD be standardized. They shouldn't be drastically different from run to run.

As for the color vs plastic type..... absolutely untrue. Different plastics shrink at different values (I can happily show you the chart, it's in my toolbox). This would cause the disc to mold up slightly different in different plastics. Which could/would cause stability differences across different plastics. The color shouldn't make any difference at all. If you have discs of different colors that fly different, I guarantee it's not the color causing it.

The whole "hiding the run" thing.....either you have WAY more inside information than I, or are completely clueless about injection molding. That's not at all what's happening there. Even with standard plastics, you couldn't tell one weeks run apart from the next, unless they labeled them different or some kind of physical change took place in the tooling or something. Even if the discs look slightly different, they could have been from the same run. Heck, I've seen parts from the same runs ran 20 minutes apart look like completely different parts, adjustment made at the press, and 4 mins later, parts are back to 100% normal.

Also "tweaking" the mold, implying that the cavity or core of the mold (molding surfaces) were modified, is something thats VERY unlikely to be happening with any kind of frequency. That is very precise, very expensive work, that for disc golf discs, very likely isn't worth the changes. They are going to tweak a core insert to try and gain .5 stability on something for example. Way not worth it.

OK, let me name a few things that determine the final shape of injection molded disc. Apart from a mold itself of course.

1. a chemical composition of used plastic
2. injection temperature
3. mold temperature
4. injection pressure - product density
4. mold time
5. the way of how discs are transported from a mold to a cooling area
6. cooling intensity (cooling area temperature) and direction of air flow

Probably missed something, but the point is, that changing any of those will change the outcome.

So now you have a hint of why none of the manufacturers products are consistent and why I would strongly suggest to start thinking of rating the discs not only by the design of the mold, but in combination of by the actual outcome. Precision (laser) measurement equipment is not expensive. All they need are a couple of DIY capable hardware and software engineers to come up with solutions.

I still believe in the colors for whatever reason, cooling or otherwise. Took a long time for me to believe and you're not talking me out of it!

White FR inertia and yellow esp comets for me please haha

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrisDG (Post 3631906)

So now you have a hint of why none of the manufacturers products are consistent and why I would strongly suggest to start thinking of rating the discs not only by the design of the mold, but in combination of by the actual outcome. Precision (laser) measurement equipment is not expensive. All they need are a couple of DIY capable hardware and software engineers to come up with solutions.

Ive thought of that before too. I like the idea in theory, but, truthfully, flight numbers are so arbitrary anyways, and we all throw so different, would the end result be any more meaningful? To justify the cost and/or extra effort? I think it'd just end up a mess honestly. Accurate measurements are super easy. Translation into flight numbers is much more an educated guess.

Should be rather easy if not over thinking this.
With every mold, first, they mold a prototype, which will be rated by pro team players. Then they will take the key measures, standardize it and from that point forward every deviations in +- directions will get an offset numbers from that standard. How much offset in numbers is needed per unit of measure can also be standardized linearly or exponentially, which ever method suits the best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrisDG (Post 3631937)

But then you are sending every disc thru QC too, no? That's a lot more labor intensive than a min wage operator just looking at a disc to check for cosmetic defects. And at the rate discs are produced in a press, the measuring/labeling people would never keep up. At least the way I'm seeing it.

I used to float from the toolroom over to QC In the Injection molding place I worked. Part of our procedure was to pull "x" parts per hour off the presses and run them thru checks not unlike you are saying. Not every part, just a sample. When 15 presses were running, I could barely keep up with that, let alone checking even more parts.

Maybe you are envisioning the process much different than I am though.

Not at all. Assuming that all the critical points stay consistent throughout a single run, they'd only need to measure a several per run, per production line - just like you were saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrisDG (Post 3631971)

Not at all. Assuming that all the critical points stay consistent throughout a single run, they'd only need to measure a several per run, per production line - just like you were saying.

Okay. I follow a little bit better now. But that seems like you would be opening up doors to a massive headache. Wouldn't it be better to improve your process to eliminate the changes throughout the runs vs documenting the differences?

However, what SHOULD happen at the least, is unique #'s for the different plastic options. Plasma vs Cosmic Neutron for example, seem to be considerably different