[Other] Disc Legality

[smyith]

So the Innova Tern-X got me to wondering if it is legal or not so I messaged the PDGA and got this in response. Thought it might be good for discussion.

Hi, With all the discs coming out as of late, I have noticed a trend of not getting discs re-approved after changes are made to it. So I was wondering if you could clarify something for me. When a mold is approved, does that mean all its variances are approved too? For instance: the Tern. Is the Tern-X legal? Or the Monster X and L? Gator, beaded and beadless? The multitude of different Destroyer molds? Used to be that you see all variances approved separately but as of late it doesn't seem like that has been common place anymore. I wish I had more examples than just Innova but I don't know the other brands as well. Could you please clarify it for me?

There is a long history to this issue and I don't have time to review all the details. In short, I argued for years, starting over 20 years ago, that all variants needed to be tested and approved. After the Board rejected that proposal several times, the Board approved my proposal about 10 years ago, only to reverse their decision within a year, after a number of prominent manufacturers claimed that requirement would be too difficult for them. So now I test variants if they are supplied to me voluntarily, with no PDGA fee assessed, and in those cases the discs can be listed as approved. Variants are still permitted even if they are not specifically listed as approved. It's not the system that I prefer, but without the backing of the Board to require all variants be tested, that's what we're left with.

 

[DannyThunders]

and there you have it.

 

[smyith]

honestly, I got to agree with Mr. Homburg. I think its rather dumb that they dont have to get molds re-approved after changing them. what then is the point in even requiring the approval if after the approval you can change it to whatever you want and as long as the approved name is stamped on it you are good to go?

 

[blackcatsmith]

Is there something disc manufacturers could do to make discs fly "better" were it not for the PDGA approval requirements?

 

[smyith]

Is there something disc manufacturers could do to make discs fly "better" were it not for the PDGA approval requirements?

probably...i bet disc rigidity makes a difference, and larger wings as well. but idk realistically.

 

[Questatement]

A slight variation on an approved disc will never a pro tourney win.

 

[cjman]

The changes manufactures make when tweaking a mold are within the acceptable bounds of an approved disc. For example, What's adding a spacer going to do in the approval process if the mold is nowhere near the spec limit?

If a manufacturer was to make a change, such as a larger wing, they would be required to have it re approved.

Production seems to be on the honor system following approval. Given the amount of money 20,000 of us paid to the PDGA in 2013 for membership, one would think the next step in disc regulation would be reasonable and expected in 2014. I don't expect things to magically be perfect with one new rule or enforcement, but a small step in the right direction would show good intent.

 

[ferretdance03]

...If a manufacturer was to make a change, such as a larger wing, they would be required to have it re approved...

Not if the name stays the same.

 

[ViolaBouquet]

wow. I love the honesty.

 

[cjman]

Not if the name stays the same.

That is not true. To believe that is naive.

Gateway was selling out of spec discs. A complaint was made. Once the complaint was filed, discs were tested. Tested discs failed, and the PDGA asked Gateway to stop producing this line of discs.

If a manufacturer was to modify a disc with rim width over the spec, there would be a complaint, and it would be rectified.

If you made a complaint saying my destroyer has a different wing profile, it would be ignored.

 

[smyith]

That is not true. To believe that is naive.

Gateway was selling out of spec discs. A complaint was made. Once the complaint was filed, discs were tested. Tested discs failed, and the PDGA asked Gateway to stop producing this line of discs.

If a manufacturer was to modify a disc with rim width over the spec, there would be a complaint, and it would be rectified.

If you made a complaint saying my destroyer has a different wing profile, it would be ignored.

you dont have your facts straight. the Gateway compliant was about plastic not mold. different subject.

adding a spacer may not put it out of spec, but it does change the flight and all the spec numbers. it could also (assumption warning) change the rigidity of the disc. so it very well could make a disc out of spec.

my problem comes in every aspect of what is an approved disc. from the arbitrary weight to diameter ratio, to the approval process, to the total lack of any research to justify any of the arbitrary numbers. why have a rule if it is not going to be enforced?

additionally, this is just another knock on the image of disc golf. a bunch of dumb stoners make rules and cant even follow them.

its really not that much to ask a manufacturer to resubmit mold changes. maybe someone with more intimate knowledge of the costs could demonstrate just how much it would cost.

 

[onemilemore]

I believe the approval fee is $300, or something in that ballpark. Certainly not a deal breaker, unless the manufacturer never intends to bring the disc to market and only wants to make a handful to have people test.

 

[notroman]

Here is a post from Chuck addressing a similar question I had earlier. This will explain at which point do discs have to be resubmitted for approval:

The manufacturers are only required to resubmit when there are mold changes that change the dimensions that are actually part of the disc specifications. Different plastic in the same mold does not require a resubmission unless the manufacturer wishes to have it tested because they suspect something like the flexibility might be too stiff.

Note in the Disc Spec diagram on the bottom of Page 2: http://www.pdga.com/documents/pdga-technical-standards-manufacturers-guidelines that the shape of the curvature from the Leading Edge to the where the disc Height and inner Rim Width are measured is not specified. As long as the Height and Rim Width dimensions haven't changed, the manufacturer can fiddle around with the curve both above and below the Leading Edge. As far as meeting Tech Standards, it's the same disc. Same thing with the dome. There is no dome spec. Because of where the Height is measured, flat, raised or sunken domes can come from the same approved mold.

 

[notroman]

To elaborate on that, these are the only specs measured in the approval sheet: Weight, diameter, height, rim depth, inside rim diameter, rim thickness, rim depth/diam. ratio, rim config, flexibility...


So if the manufacturer tweaks something in the mold but all the above specs remain the same then it doesn't need to be re-submitted for approval.

This is why there are Eagle-X and Eagle-L molds approved under the same Eagle name - none of the MEASURED specs are changed. There is nothing that measures the concavity of the wing (no way to say if there is a notch or not), etc. This is why the Beast never had to be re-approved when it was tweaked. For all you know, Innova can add a notch to the Destroyer wing right now and it will still be approved. Same with the different Destroyer variants in the last couple of hears - PD2 nose or flat nose or whatever nose...as long as the specs listed in the approved sheet are the same, which they are, nobody is going to care what shape the nose of the disc has.

 

[smyith]

To elaborate on that, these are the only specs measured in the approval sheet: Weight, diameter, height, rim depth, inside rim diameter, rim thickness, rim depth/diam. ratio, rim config, flexibility...

i love a good Chuck explanation.
not measuring the curvature of the disc wing or dome seems silly since it is what makes a disc fly in a certain way. but at the same time what a pain in the *** to measure and enforce.

just another arbitrary thing in disc approval that annoys me. following those lame rules, Innova could take a Firebird and change it into a Roadrunner-like disc while maintaining its approval.

it also brings another important factor that was argued the last time and I believe should require re-testing. flexibility is apart of the test and therefore every new plastic batch should be subject to the test. I can grab a Firebird right now I know will fail a flexibility test even if it was at 100+ degrees. And give me a couple hours to drive to peoples house and I can produce you a stack 2 feet high with them. All of them are from the same time period and presumably the same batch. Heck Roman you could probably do the same with whats in your house.
but in reality, flexibility is another arbitrary number that they made up to follow. Yet they can't even do that...and the they is the manufacturers so...

 

[notroman]

I'm pretty sure the entire stack of backup Firebirds I have now won't pass the flex test... But hey.

 

[ZAMson]

I'm pretty sure the entire stack of backup Firebirds I have now won't pass the flex test... But hey.

Betcha those discs could knock some hats off the table!

 

[smyith]

Betcha those discs could knock some hats off the table!

lulz