DX Plastic Variations

[SirRaph]

I think it's in the beads where the majority of their inconsistencies surface. They either don't care, don't monitor, or just don't know what they're getting when they order, and when they mix it. I mean there are human elements that come into all the processes as you said, since they have to mix it all themselves, (you wouldn't think it would be real hard) Take a scoop of this, scoop of that, throw this in, pour this in, mix it for this long at this temp. (especially if you've seen any History Channel Modern Marvels or any other how it's made show, most companies have this stuff measured out to ensure quality control.)

There is some human element, as you said, but good gracious. I sell manufacturing equipment, (CNC machine tools.) Some of these machines go into very small shops, run by one or two guys, with little or no quality program in place. And they're not forming frisbees, they're shearing stainless steel off of a block with .001" accuracies or better. And types of shops make parts for all sorts of very important things...things which if they're wrong, people could die. You'd think that after all the years that Innova has been in business, they'd have dialed in their process by now.

I often wonder if their habit of pushing so many new molds accounts for some of this. They may have to formulate a different "DX" for a Wraith than they would for a Roc, for example, because of the thin dome. So maybe they think, "well, we've got all of this plastic left over, let's toss some into the Aviar mold." Then they just try to fit the resulting discs into under the umbrella of one of their previous plastic names.

I think it just comes down to the DG manufacturers for the most part aren't that interested in the quality control of their plastic for possibly a number of reasons, staffing, knowledge of the processs, and DG. Plus the main issue that comes into every part of that is the fact of money. They don't want to hire a team of semi-scientist (Because it's going to take more than a pro saying, "Oh this feels just like that one run of so and so plastic, this is money.) to pin down small anomalies in their plastic. It'll take some equipment, and staff they aren't willing to invest in to insure you get a premium base line disc every single time.

That's probably the underlying issue here. I'm guessing the majority of Innova's sales are made to new players who will never buy more than 3 discs. Consistency will never be an issue for those players.

As far as staffing goes, I can imagine it can get pretty difficult for DG manufacturers, especially in California. A good plastic injection guy in CA is going to go to any one of the many medical manufacturers, for likely far more money.

I hate to do this, but I think that their dominance probably adds to some of it as well. I don't know how much of the market they control, but they certainly have far better distribution than any other DG manufacturer. Even the second in line is well behind them. And just like in every other business, the top dog can sometimes get a bit lazy. The DG market lacks competition at the top level. And because it's such a small market, there's little incentive for companies that have the capital to take them head-on, to make the investment.

 

[Lithicon]

There is some human element, as you said, but good gracious. I sell manufacturing equipment, (CNC machine tools.) Some of these machines go into very small shops, run by one or two guys, with little or no quality program in place. And they're not forming frisbees, they're shearing stainless steel off of a block with .001" accuracies or better. And types of shops make parts for all sorts of very important things...things which if they're wrong, people could die. You'd think that after all the years that Innova has been in business, they'd have dialed in their process by now.

Fully understand this, I have a lot of friends that own or work at local Machine shops and you'd think they could really learn to get their shit right after a while. LOL, which leads to your next quote I believe for being the culprit in this area of the discussion.

I often wonder if their habit of pushing so many new molds accounts for some of this. They may have to formulate a different "DX" for a Wraith than they would for a Roc, for example, because of the thin dome. So maybe they think, "well, we've got all of this plastic left over, let's toss some into the Aviar mold." Then they just try to fit the resulting discs into under the umbrella of one of their previous plastic names.

I agree here, and think they don't really care. Coupled with your theory of their dominance and them making a few different variations of plastic for certain disc to make them work better. I'm sure they mix and match plastics at some point just to use up old stuff and says to hell with what happens, whether it be for the best or worst in terms of quality of plastic. I'm sure that some of the great mixes are probably accidents of them mixing shit that was just left over, lol.

But, couple all that; dominance, lots of variants in making plastics work for different disc, and supply, and their lack of care for quality control as far as staffing goes. I'm sure this accounts for more than 90% of the variations of plastic.

 

[garublador1]

There is some human element, as you said, but good gracious. I sell manufacturing equipment, (CNC machine tools.) Some of these machines go into very small shops, run by one or two guys, with little or no quality program in place. And they're not forming frisbees, they're shearing stainless steel off of a block with .001" accuracies or better. And types of shops make parts for all sorts of very important things...things which if they're wrong, people could die. You'd think that after all the years that Innova has been in business, they'd have dialed in their process by now.

Yeah, but are you willing to pay for discs that are machined rather than injection molded? They'd be super expensive. Because people won't die if their discs don't come out exactly the same each time (no matter how much they argue to the contrary) Innova's customers are not willing to pay for those types of tolerances. They could have some of the best injection molding machine operators, but they can only be as good as the injection molding machines themselves.

It's also quite a bit different trying to get the plastics than it is trying to get steel. They have hundreds, if not thousands of different materials to choose from and are limited to what the plastic companies happen to be offereing at the time and have to buy relatively large quantities. Sure they can run small batches of different blends, but buying a new material that's only used for R&D can't be cost effective. They have to do some of their R&D on us, we actually demand it by demanding lower prices. We can either have a slow R&D cycle with possible bad batches, a fast R&D cycle with super expenseive discs or more consistant plastic with no improvements. All it takes is one compeditor to come up with a better plastic that costs the same to make that last strategy look really bad. Customers aren't willing to pay a lot more for each disc so we're stuck with how they do it now.

 

[JHern]

The way the US is currently structured, larger firms always have a huge advantage over small firms (economy of scale, market share leverage over contracts, political connections, etc.). This is why we can't call this a "free market," since in a free market a small start-up with a good idea could really compete on level ground with a big firm. In reality, a successful small firm rarely grows to the size of pre-existing dominant competitors. Instead, they are often simply taken over by the pre-existing big firms, who then adopt the successful ways of the smaller firm...or maybe they don't adopt those ways, and just buy them out to be rid of them.

So if you want to change Innova, the best way is to simply start a new company with stringent QC and more scientific mold design process, and if it is hugely successful then maybe Innova can buy you out, and maybe then would incorporate those ideas into their own process. :lol:

The other thing is money. The sport will have to go to the next level (i.e., more players with more money) before many of these things change, but they might very well go in that direction...But be careful what you wish for...just look at ball golf and all the stupid gimmicks and crap that has developed around that sport when there is too much attention put on minute insignificant details.

 

[SirRaph]

Yeah, but are you willing to pay for discs that are machined rather than injection molded?

Well, I don't know that anyone would want a machined disc. Though the dies are inevitably machined to some degree of precision in order for the two halves to fit together. My point was that there's no reason why an injected molded part, whether it's a medical implant, a car dash or a disc golf disc, can't be dead nuts accurate.

But I don't think that the inconsistencies in Innova's discs can be blamed on low quality dies. There was another post a bit ago where Innova was announcing that they were finally changing/replacing the Teebird die. That die is lasting a LONG time. The problem has to be in:
1) The cooling/setting process. That's where discs shrink, and domes cave in. A .0005" change in the mold DEFINITELY won't make a difference in flight pattern. But, for example, if the operator pulls the discs out and then stacks them in piles of 10 while they cool, the disc on top will inevitably fly differently than the one on the bottom, etc.
2) Plastic itself. And this is the more likely culprit. Different ratios/ingredients will cure differently.

They could have some of the best injection molding machine operators, but they can only be as good as the injection molding machines themselves.

Let's compare them, in theory, to Discraft (and I'm going to come off like a DC salesman here) but their discs vary far less. Innova positively makes more revenue, and has more capital to spend on equipment than DC. I doubt their equipment is NASA tier, but it obviously has the ability to produce consistent results...especially given the relatively wide tolerance band the DG world lives in.

It's also quite a bit different trying to get the plastics than it is trying to get steel. They have hundreds, if not thousands of different materials to choose from and are limited to what the plastic companies happen to be offereing at the time and have to buy relatively large quantities.

Steel and metals are FAR more difficult to produce reliably than plastic blends. The machine shops I mentioned before are buying from a dealer, who buys the material from a mill. They're not smelting the metal in house. They're at the mercy of the mill, just hoping that the material will machine the same. Plastic beads are tremendously consistent in makeup. And Innova is blending the beads themselves, so they have complete control over the result.
Innova, especially being in CA, has access to some powerhouse plastic distribution companies. And they're unequivocally buying more bulk than some of the medical and electronics companies--their product doesn't have any quality control bottleneck, and they're absolutely churning out discs, made of 100% plastic. So I'm guessing they actually buy more material than some of the medical companies.

Sure they can run small batches of different blends, but buying a new material that's only used for R&D can't be cost effective.

Maybe I'm a little spoiled here, but I think it would be unacceptable for nearly any other manufacturer to consistently release "prototype" products into the market in hopes that their customers will do their R&D for them. I can't possibly imagine that the inconsistency is simply a bunch of prototype runs, which they then surf the DG forums to see if people like it or not.
As far as costs go, relative to the rest of the world, Innova's R&D is ridonkulously inexpensive. There are no government watch dog standards committees for frisbees, and no standards, and very little overhead. There's no cost for the testing equipment...as testing consists of going to a field and throwing the product. I bet the cost of actually producing a consistent disc pales in comparison to their marketing costs.

And if they were trying to lean out some of their costs, the first thing to go would be all the new discs they release. The cost of the dies themselves, but mostly, the cost of marketing all the new discs, is I'm sure far more expensive than it would be to dial in a process that created quality, consistent frisbees.

 

[SirRaph]

The way the US is currently structured, larger firms always have a huge advantage over small firms (economy of scale, market share leverage over contracts, political connections, etc.). This is why we can't call this a "free market," since in a free market a small start-up with a good idea could really compete on level ground with a big firm. In reality, a successful small firm rarely grows to the size of pre-existing dominant competitors. Instead, they are often simply taken over by the pre-existing big firms, who then adopt the successful ways of the smaller firm...or maybe they don't adopt those ways, and just buy them out to be rid of them.

The other thing is money. The sport will have to go to the next level (i.e., more players with more money) before many of these things change, but they might very well go in that direction...But be careful what you wish for...just look at ball golf and all the stupid gimmicks and crap that has developed around that sport when there is too much attention put on minute insignificant details.

I think that if the Toyota vs. The Big Three lesson of the last decade has taught us anything, it's that smaller companies have the quality control advantage. Toyota was able to make a high quality car when they were the 4th in line, but when production increased, quality slipped, (not trying to make a political statement or the like, it's just a good example, I drive a Toyota.)

But again, the cost of making a consistent disc is negligible for any of the larger players in DG. These things cost PENNIES to make, PENNIES. And the cost to make a DX Teebird vs. a Star Teebird, is very similar, if not equal, when production is as high as Innova's.


I mean, seriously, they're making plastic trash can lids here! It's not rocket science! The science of manufacture of these things simply can't account for the variations in plastic. It's either idiocy, or indifference.

 

[RocHed]

I just saw a guy with a crap waxy DX plastic Stingray today crack it in half with a very modest impact into a tree. The pro shop was full of this garbage DX blend. I'm not buying any Innova DX discs until Innova upgrades the blend again. The Pro D from Discraft is presently far superior.

Like I said the Teebird I recently picked up was from a new shipment to my local dgolf store and it is absolutely immaculate. I've banged it into trees pretty good and currently there are no dings to see, unfortunately I think my Eagle was that "crap waxy DX plastic". Almost all of my discs are DX and they really do run the gamut though, it seems all of my dx discs are actually of different consistency I have 2 valkyries that are vastly different and my Roc is pretty dang soft while the Eagle was very rigid(brittle?).

 

[garublador1]

It's obvious that making consistent discs is possible. Look at the Ultrastar. Maybe I just haven't heard it, but do Ultimate players complain about the consistency in those discs? I used to buy one or two per year and I never noticed a difference. From what I hear the Ultrastar itself sells as well, if not better than most all disc golf molds combined. There's only one mold, one weight, only a couple, similar plastic types and very little competition from new molds/plastics coming out. The question isn't whether or not they can make disc golf discs more consistant, it's why they don't?

Let's compare them, in theory, to Discraft (and I'm going to come off like a DC salesman here) but their discs vary far less. Innova positively makes more revenue, and has more capital to spend on equipment than DC. I doubt their equipment is NASA tier, but it obviously has the ability to produce consistent results...especially given the relatively wide tolerance band the DG world lives in.

You're making a false assumption. DC's run to run inconsistencies are not better than Innova's. They just don't have as many runs. It's easy to look more consistent when you aren't running or selling as much.

Steel and metals are FAR more difficult to produce reliably than plastic blends. The machine shops I mentioned before are buying from a dealer, who buys the material from a mill. They're not smelting the metal in house. They're at the mercy of the mill, just hoping that the material will machine the same. Plastic beads are tremendously consistent in makeup. And Innova is blending the beads themselves, so they have complete control over the result.
Innova, especially being in CA, has access to some powerhouse plastic distribution companies. And they're unequivocally buying more bulk than some of the medical and electronics companies--their product doesn't have any quality control bottleneck, and they're absolutely churning out discs, made of 100% plastic. So I'm guessing they actually buy more material than some of the medical companies.

You may want to do some fact checking on that. Ask any disc only manufacturer what it's like ordering plastics. They're at the mercy of what the distributers want to offer them because they order way less plastic than most other vendors. If one of the components of their plastic blend is discontinued or changed there's nothing they can afford to do about it. Making the blends is easy, getting consistent materials and finding the best blend is what's difficult. So imagine that you're at the mercy of not just one mill, but several mills and then you blend those materials yourself. You have to hope all of those different materials are the same each time, but don't have the pull to complain when they're not.

Maybe I'm a little spoiled here, but I think it would be unacceptable for nearly any other manufacturer to consistently release "prototype" products into the market in hopes that their customers will do their R&D for them. I can't possibly imagine that the inconsistency is simply a bunch of prototype runs, which they then surf the DG forums to see if people like it or not.

Yet they still sell discs. Apparently it isn't that big of a problem. People would apparently rather have "better" plastic than consistent plastic.

As far as costs go, relative to the rest of the world, Innova's R&D is ridonkulously inexpensive. There are no government watch dog standards committees for frisbees, and no standards, and very little overhead. There's no cost for the testing equipment...as testing consists of going to a field and throwing the product. I bet the cost of actually producing a consistent disc pales in comparison to their marketing costs.

You missed my point. They can afford to run small batches of R&D discs, but only if it's a blend of plastics they already use. They can't afford to buy experiment plastic and have it not work. It's also worth noting that, from my understanding, there isn't just one blend for any given plastic type. A Star Aviar and a Star Wraith might not be the same blend. There was a while ago when Innova might have had to discontinue only drivers in Pro plastic because they couldn't get one of the components, but they could still make some discs because that ingredient wasn't required.

And if they were trying to lean out some of their costs, the first thing to go would be all the new discs they release. The cost of the dies themselves, but mostly, the cost of marketing all the new discs, is I'm sure far more expensive than it would be to dial in a process that created quality, consistent frisbees.

No argument there. I'd guess that that's part of the reason Dave D. liked the idea of a rim width limitation. If they didn't have to spend all that time making new wide rimmed discs they could work on better stuff instead. I suspect, and the way the industry is run supports this, is that customers care way more about having new discs than they do consistency. The first thing we learned in lean training was that you should focus on things the customer is willing to pay for. I'd guess that the customer is more willing to pay for new discs than consistent plastic blends.

The problem as a customer who wants better consistency is what do you do about it? For every one person here who likes consistency, there are ten rec players out there who won't even notice and just want to buy new discs.

 

[jubuttib]

So if you want to change Innova, the best way is to simply start a new company with stringent QC and more scientific mold design process, and if it is hugely successful then maybe Innova can buy you out, and maybe then would incorporate those ideas into their own process. :lol:

You're talking about MVP ain't ya?

I think that if the Toyota vs. The Big Three lesson of the last decade has taught us anything, it's that smaller companies have the quality control advantage. Toyota was able to make a high quality car when they were the 4th in line, but when production increased, quality slipped, (not trying to make a political statement or the like, it's just a good example, I drive a Toyota.)

Bad example. Just because Toyota was number 4 doesn't mean it wasn't huge. Really small companies like for example TVR have real problems with build quality. Also the big three French manufacturers (Renault, Peugot and Citroën) are notorious for build quality issues. And the big three have been shit from the start (well, Ford made some great models, all designed in the UK though). Toyota is still one of the best made cars in the world and pretty much always in the top-10 in customer satisfaction surveys and vehicle inspection passing rates around the world. It's mainly the ADM models that suffer from this, outside the States the problems have been pretty nonexistent.

Mercedes also had some SERIOUS issues with quality control for around 2002-2006 or so. This was plainly caused by the company's decision that their cars were needlessly over-engineered and they could do with less. Well, they couldn't and as a result they sunk to the levels of French cars (which are very infamous for breaking down. A lot. Not an opinion, just a fact.) in the surveys. Then they admitted that things didn't work out and returned to the old ways, and now they're back on the top again. It's a matter of company policy as much as anything.

 

[JHern]

I think that if the Toyota vs. The Big Three lesson of the last decade has taught us anything, it's that smaller companies have the quality control advantage. Toyota was able to make a high quality car when they were the 4th in line, but when production increased, quality slipped, (not trying to make a political statement or the like, it's just a good example, I drive a Toyota.)

Bad example. Just because Toyota was number 4 doesn't mean it wasn't huge. Really small companies like for example TVR have real problems with build quality. Also the big three French manufacturers (Renault, Peugot and Citroën) are notorious for build quality issues. And the big three have been shit from the start (well, Ford made some great models, all designed in the UK though). Toyota is still one of the best made cars in the world and pretty much always in the top-10 in customer satisfaction surveys and vehicle inspection passing rates around the world. It's mainly the ADM models that suffer from this, outside the States the problems have been pretty nonexistent.

Toyota was a giant long ago, indeed. Toyota successfully suppressed any new auto company from forming in Japan (the other big company then was Nissan). Thus Honda motors (for example), was not allowed to manufacture anything other than motors in Japan. Honda instead opened up a shop on Pico Blvd in Los Angeles, and started making scooters and such. Eventually they made a car, and it was a huge smash hit. Only after that huge success was Honda then allowed to become a bonafide automaker in Japan.

Honda is now the number one car maker in terms of customer loyalty and resale value.

Mercedes also had some SERIOUS issues with quality control for around 2002-2006 or so. This was plainly caused by the company's decision that their cars were needlessly over-engineered and they could do with less. Well, they couldn't and as a result they sunk to the levels of French cars (which are very infamous for breaking down. A lot. Not an opinion, just a fact.) in the surveys. Then they admitted that things didn't work out and returned to the old ways, and now they're back on the top again. It's a matter of company policy as much as anything.

Mercedes tried to do what Chrysler did back in the days, its what the bean counters and finance experts who run the corporations call "innovation." As a common person, you'd think that "innovation" sounds cool, implying new technology, a better product, or something like that. But, in fact, for these guys "innovation" means cutting corners somewhere, either by directly degrading product quality, or by firing your artisan craftsmen and replacing them with minimum wage temp workers (or just plain shipping the job out of country). Or trying to standardize equipment or parts across numerous models when it makes no sense to do so (remember the K car?). This is what they call "innovation," I'm totally serious, I've talked to these jerks myself and this is what they think, and spend all day patting one another on the back for ruining even once grand manufacturing firms. (Don't believe me? Go to an auto museum, and see it for yourself.)

This kind of innovation is garbage. It shows a lack of pride in the product, and they only do it to line their own pockets with bonuses. You see, after changing something to cut corners, they say "hey, I saved our company $40 million. I think I deserve at least a $10 million bonus!" This is the American way at corporations over the last 30 years...see where it has gotten us.

Back to Toyota. Toyota began to cooperate and share knowledge and methods with GM a while ago (not sure exactly when). They even opened up a joint auto plant here in NorCal, and made Scions and such. The plant is just closing now, for good. But whatever GM learned from Toyota, in fact, the influence on Toyota was more extreme. It had been a company where any employee anywhere along the production line could pull the alarm and shut down production if there was a problem cropping up that needed to be addressed. That was superb QC, and it worked well for a long time. But then American style "innovation" came to Toyota, and they adopted a different QC regime, where cutting corners and costs was elevated to the very highest priority. And now they're paying the price for that.

EDITED/SNIPPED

 

[jubuttib]

Good stuff JHern, but I'll ask about two things:

1. K-Car as in the Chrysler K-platform or the Japanese K (kei) car classification?

2. I'm not seeing the relationship between Mercedes and Jaguar. Jaguar was owned by Ford from 1988->2007, Daimler AG was DaimlerChrysler between 1998-2007, what relationship did they have? Did Chrysler have some relationship with Ford? Am I in the wrong decades altogether?

 

[JHern]

Good stuff JHern, but I'll ask about two things:

1. K-Car as in the Chrysler K-platform or the Japanese K (kei) car classification?

Chrysler.

2. I'm not seeing the relationship between Mercedes and Jaguar. Jaguar was owned by Ford from 1988->2007, Daimler AG was DaimlerChrysler between 1998-2007, what relationship did they have? Did Chrysler have some relationship with Ford? Am I in the wrong decades altogether?

Never mind, I was wrong, it was based on bad information. But anyways, the Mercedes did undergo a major design change which helped sell more cars...

 

[JHern]

Back to discs and disc makers...this is a small industry, for sure, and can't easily be compared to the complexity and scale of making autos. Seriously, I think these guys (Innova, Discraft, etc.) are mostly just having fun, and making a modest living while doing something they enjoy. Sounds like a neat deal to me, too!

What we're seeing on this board, and in other places, is a desire to see the level of quality standards in discs move up to the next level. For many of these companies, I would guess that doing so will require changing their mentality somewhat, and for many of them doing so might not sound like much fun. Getting all gadgety and techy about the discs at a higher level is the kind of thing they've avoided ever since dropping out of math and physics courses back in college. And they probably aren't always comfortable hiring some know-it-all whiz kid(s) to come in and make very important changes/modifications to their business, and I understand that too. They've scored some patents and such, but that's about all they really wish to do to secure the future of their business (as well as promoting the sport). After all, things work OK for them they way they are right now, so what's the point of changing drastically in the future?

I think we'll see a Honda motors come out of this somewhere. By analogy, the Honda motors of disc golf could be a plastic molding or rubber company that decides to branch out and see their piece of the process through to the final product, instead of only doing a component. By coming at the game from a different perspective, they could make huge waves in the market and become a dominant player down the road.

I would go into this business myself (I have some very grand ideas, indeed) but I don't already have a process-related background or connection to build onto to make it to that final stage of stamping my own discs. I have some plastic mold and die tool makers in my family, but that's about it (and they already have stable employment!). And I would need some seed funding too, to devote some real labor to pounding out the details of the methodology for disc design.

 

[jubuttib]

This thread reminds me of why I expect great things from MVP in the future. They seem dedicated to pushing the boundaries of disc technology and have already shown how it's possible to do very consistent discs when you can control the raw material to a high degree (and they're in a pretty special place in this regard). They've had very little variance in the final products as it is and have managed to get everything even closer to spec since (in some of the earlier ones the overmold might be a bit high or low, but apparently they managed to fix that).

I just wish there were more companies like this, and more support for them.