[Discraft] FLX Buzzz vs. Z Buzzz SS

[The Bard]

Deciding between the two. Thoughts?

As an aside, I'm looking for something that will fly straight and will hopefully be good for trees also. (I throw a somewhat beat 175 KC Pro Roc about 250 avg). I know the FLX is better for trees (less bounce), but how do the flights of the two compare.

Thanks!

 

[young gun]

your roc will cover the buzz ss so i would go with the flx buzzz i love mine

 

[GLong]

the flx will be straight with fade. from my experience flx buzz are pretty low speed overstable, less so than the glo buzz but more than z/esp.

lots of discs can be thrown straight. a lot of the decision comes down to what you want it to do when it starts to slow down. the flx beats into a much straighter flyer with time and the fade softens. they take a lot of abuse before they really get 'flippy' at all. and that's really only once they get close to 300' and over, at least in my experience.

at 250' average mid D I would guess your average driver D is 320-330'? you might wanna try going a bit lighter on the mids. i'm not posting this to pick on you just wanna share the info. IMO it should be stickied.

this is from JR on discgolfreview:

weight recommendations based upon distance you average with drivers:

if you throw > 425' = 179-180g Rocs
if you throw 380'-424' = 177-178g Rocs
if you throw 330-379' = 174-176g Rocs
if you throw 275-329' = 171-173g Rocs
if you throw 225-274' = 168-170g Rocs
if you throw < 224' = 167g or lighter Rocs

basically, you can move upwards in weight for wind resistance purposes, but for your go-to rocs, you won't gain any stability by moving more than a gram or two outside of the ranges i have laid out... what will happen is that if you significantly heavier you will lose a substantial amount of D.

e.g. someone throwing 250' with drivers will get identical flight paths out of a 170g roc as a 180g roc but will probably throw the 180g about 25' shorter.

 

[The Bard]

I'm not quite sure, but based on what I understand from what you said it sounds like a Z Buzzz SS would be better? I would be looking something that is less low-speed overstable. In other words, fades very little at the end of it's flight. And yes, that is about what I throw on average. Thanks for the Roc weights, that is helpful.

 

[UKfan]

I love my FLX Buzzz, esp. for approaches. I think on approaches that tend to have a small reliable fade (mine fade usually about 5 feet for 50-100 feet for example). They land and generally do not take off too much unless you get unlucky and something causes it to flip on its side.

 

[Stetz1010]

I throw both, and from my experiences my Buzzz SS brand new has pretty much flown identical to a FLX Buzzz I've had for a couple years - which is why they market it as a "pre-beat" buzzz. Only difference between'em is when I play the local wooded course, hitting a tree with the FLX Buzzz is def. more forgiving than a Z Buzzz SS...I'de say pick up both of them, they're pretty easy to trade off b/c of their popularity...

 

[pspunch]

try an elite X buzzz. that'll finish very straight right out of the box

 

[truk]

I've had the opposite luck with tree bounces - my FLX Buzzz is like watching a pinball machine when it gets off course, but the SS doesn't seem particularly bad (note: I didn't say good either).

On flights, I think the FLX is better at reliably cranking out long, straight flights with slight fade, whereas the SS goes exactly where you throw it...and keeps going that way, leading to potential big misses. That said, I still prefer the SS since I tend to under-power my straight mid shots, which naturally puts overstable fade on the flight.

 

[Midnightbiker]

All of my Z Buzzs fly fairly straight with little to no fade.

 

[KelReeves]

I think PSPUNCH is correct. In my experience, the X Buzzz has less low-speed stability than either disc mentioned. As far as the trees you mentioned, the more you hit the straighter the X Buzzz gets. My only complaint with the Buzzz SS is, it wasn't much different than a Z Buzzz that had been slightly beat in.