[Innova] Wiggins Tour Series Destroyer in ProShop

[Swisher Streets]

I am going to get one of the Wiggins discs just to photo it next to a Teedevil and a Vulcan to show the idiots the difference.

I bet you're real fun at parties

 

[chambers]

Has anyone thrown these yet? Curious if how they fly.



__________________________

 

[BirdieMachine]

This isn't Vulcan topped, whoever says they are is clueless. Seriously, have you never seen a Teedevil before?

 

[Kenny53691]

I work in a machining and fabrication facility, spending a lot of my time doing costing and estimation. I don't know a ton about plastic injection (though we have machined molds for injection shops before) but I do know quite a bit about cost to manufacture.

First thing we need to understand is that the there isn't anyone making their fortune selling disc golf discs. We have to assume that whatever their costs are to operate (purchase a new mold, inject and cure with new processes (and the scrap product they inevitably produce) run their shop, pay their workforce, ship and distribute, market, finance pros, etc.) is higher than you'd think. There's simply too many competing brands in modern disc golf to believe we're somehow being fleeced. There aren't any DG disc makers coming out with premium line discs at $6 a piece. They're all right about the same price. So their margins and costs much be pretty well matured and understood.

The second thing we need to understand is that it's not as easy to produce a super consistent DG disc as you you'd assume. The aerodynamics of what is actually taking place in the flight of a disc are complex. So many things come into play when something is spinning at high RPM, flying through the air, hundreds and hundreds of times during the product's life. And when we're talking about consistency from one run of discs to another, the word we're looking for is not "accuracy", but "repeatability". And as I'm sure natedg could tell you, injection molding is a difficult process to do with high repeatability. It's possible, but there are real costs involved. Don't misunderstand. The costs to improve repeatability aren't only in their cost to replace a 10k mold every couple years. It's in developing a quality control program (a good QC manager will cost you $75k salary easily), manufacturing metrics (the softwares involved are very expensive...getting your ISO cert for example is $80k just in the fees and records), implementing better processes and hiring more qualified personnel, etc. Oh and that new quality team put you over 50 employees, now you have to provide health insurance -- there goes $500,000 annually, etc.

The third thing we need to understand is that disc golfers are generally very cheap, even among avid players. Let's attempt some quick math here:
How many discs can an injection machine (that's not super modern tech) produce in an hour? Let's get aggressive and say they're consistently producing 2 per minute, so 120 discs per hour.
Base plastic discs go for what, $8 a piece? And that's with the store/website taking their $ off the top. So they're probably buying them at, what, $5 a piece?
So every hour, a DG manufacturer is producing enough product to generate $600 in revenue. Add the cost of personnel, overhead, marketing, freight, etc. They're probably making 10% on that $600 gross. So as a DG injection shop, you're charging $60 or less per hour to make discs.
NateDG, what does your company charge per hour to injection mold? I bet it's more than $120 per hour. We charge that for machining on most jobs.

So that means that if a DG manufacturer wanted to produce consistent discs, they have to use manufacturing principles that would literally double their costs. You guys willing to pay $35 for a Champ Teebird? What if every one you got flew exactly like the last one? What about the once-per-year 3-discer player that constitutes the vast majority of their customer base? Hell-to-the-no they're not paying that.
That's what I thought. And that's what the DG molders know. Until the customer's desire for consistency outweighs the cost to achieve it, they're never going to make that jump.

Lastly, keep in mind the point I just illustrated, and remember that the vast majority of the product that Innova/Discraft sells is at MC Sports to a dad and two young kids. It's not like you can implement a high level QA program and only have it affect the costs of the discs you're selling to premium-disc-desiring players. Your costs go up uniformly for all of your products. So if Innova/Discraft wanted to release a premium super consistent line of discs, they have to either jack up the prices for the MC Sports shoppers, or attempt to absorb that increased cost solely through the sale of their premium super consistent discs. Which means you're now paying $70+ per disc.

Golf balls are super consistent. Golf clubs are super consistent. Golf courses are super nicely manicured. But golfers are willing to shell out the dough to experience that. Until disc golfers are ready to do the same, the quality of the equipment (discs) will match the the costs people are willing to pay...which is very little.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[goosefraba1]

I work in a machining and fabrication facility, spending a lot of my time doing costing and estimation. I don't know a ton about plastic injection (though we have machined molds for injection shops before) but I do know quite a bit about cost to manufacture.

First thing we need to understand is that the there isn't anyone making their fortune selling disc golf discs. We have to assume that whatever their costs are to operate (purchase a new mold, inject and cure with new processes (and the scrap product they inevitably produce) run their shop, pay their workforce, ship and distribute, market, finance pros, etc.) is higher than you'd think. There's simply too many competing brands in modern disc golf to believe we're somehow being fleeced. There aren't any DG disc makers coming out with premium line discs at $6 a piece. They're all right about the same price. So their margins and costs much be pretty well matured and understood.

The second thing we need to understand is that it's not as easy to produce a super consistent DG disc as you you'd assume. The aerodynamics of what is actually taking place in the flight of a disc are complex. So many things come into play when something is spinning at high RPM, flying through the air, hundreds and hundreds of times during the product's life. And when we're talking about consistency from one run of discs to another, the word we're looking for is not "accuracy", but "repeatability". And as I'm sure natedg could tell you, injection molding is a difficult process to do with high repeatability. It's possible, but there are real costs involved. Don't misunderstand. The costs to improve repeatability aren't only in their cost to replace a 10k mold every couple years. It's in developing a quality control program (a good QC manager will cost you $75k salary easily), manufacturing metrics (the softwares involved are very expensive...getting your ISO cert for example is $80k just in the fees and records), implementing better processes and hiring more qualified personnel, etc. Oh and that new quality team put you over 50 employees, now you have to provide health insurance -- there goes $500,000 annually, etc.

The third thing we need to understand is that disc golfers are generally very cheap, even among avid players. Let's attempt some quick math here:
How many discs can an injection machine (that's not super modern tech) produce in an hour? Let's get aggressive and say they're consistently producing 2 per minute, so 120 discs per hour.
Base plastic discs go for what, $8 a piece? And that's with the store/website taking their $ off the top. So they're probably buying them at, what, $5 a piece?
So every hour, a DG manufacturer is producing enough product to generate $600 in revenue. Add the cost of personnel, overhead, marketing, freight, etc. They're probably making 10% on that $600 gross. So as a DG injection shop, you're charging $60 or less per hour to make discs.
NateDG, what does your company charge per hour to injection mold? I bet it's more than $120 per hour. We charge that for machining on most jobs.

So that means that if a DG manufacturer wanted to produce consistent discs, they have to use manufacturing principles that would literally double their costs. You guys willing to pay $35 for a Champ Teebird? What if every one you got flew exactly like the last one? What about the once-per-year 3-discer player that constitutes the vast majority of their customer base? Hell-to-the-no they're not paying that.
That's what I thought. And that's what the DG molders know. Until the customer's desire for consistency outweighs the cost to achieve it, they're never going to make that jump.

Lastly, keep in mind the point I just illustrated, and remember that the vast majority of the product that Innova/Discraft sells is at MC Sports to a dad and two young kids. It's not like you can implement a high level QA program and only have it affect the costs of the discs you're selling to premium-disc-desiring players. Your costs go up uniformly for all of your products. So if Innova/Discraft wanted to release a premium super consistent line of discs, they have to either jack up the prices for the MC Sports shoppers, or attempt to absorb that increased cost solely through the sale of their premium super consistent discs. Which means you're now paying $70+ per disc.

Golf balls are super consistent. Golf clubs are super consistent. Golf courses are super nicely manicured. But golfers are willing to shell out the dough to experience that. Until disc golfers are ready to do the same, the quality of the equipment (discs) will match the the costs people are willing to pay...which is very little.

One of the most intelligent posts that I have ever seen on dgcr. :thmbup:

 

[DannyThunders]

wiggins vs. sds destroyer

wiggins vs. new AJ destroyer

Definitely feel lucky to have gotten a nice bright color considering how few of the light weights there were.

See those ones on the right , THOSE are Destroyers, very rounded at the nose. Sometimes they have big pop tops and sometimes they're flat across but they are always more of a round shape.




That thing on the left is a vulcan top, notice how its a perfectly straight line from the edge to the shoulder, then a sharp angle on the shoulder? This is exactly how my old flat vulcan top Destroyer and The Star Teedevil i had looked (save for the dome, thats the only difference).

For the record i currently throw one of the new Vulcan pop top Echo star Destroyers as my flippy Destroyer, i just wish they could make Destroyers like they used to, with a Destroyer shape to em. (*D's S/ds's and early *ds's all looked like molding variations of the same mold, vulcan top was the first one that clearly looked like a different mold)

 

[BirdieMachine]

See those ones on the right , THOSE are Destroyers, very rounded at the nose. Sometimes they have big pop tops and sometimes they're flat across but they are always more of a round shape.




That thing on the left is a vulcan top, notice how its a perfectly straight line from the edge to the shoulder, then a sharp angle on the shoulder? This is exactly how my old flat vulcan top Destroyer and The Star Teedevil i had looked (save for the dome, thats the only difference).

For the record i currently throw one of the new Vulcan pop top Echo star Destroyers as my flippy Destroyer, i just wish they could make Destroyers like they used to, with a Destroyer shape to em. (*D's S/ds's and early *ds's all looked like molding variations of the same mold, vulcan top was the first one that clearly looked like a different mold)

It's just the way it cools, higher PLH pulls the wing up and rounds it off.

 

[DannyThunders]

It's just the way it cools, higher PLH pulls the wing up and rounds it off.

*D's have the rounded wing and a lower plh..

 

[DannyThunders]

Come to think of it i've had Multiple destroyers with different PLH's and they all had a similar rounded Destroyer top. Whether it's cooling or a different top mold this is not what i'm looking for when im trying to buy a Destroyer. Have any of these Wiggins Destroyers atleast come with the PD2 styled top? or do they all have that Vulcan reminiscent top?

 

[5QU166Y]

Why don't you people just buy it based on the flight descriptions of others instead of nitpicking about the mold components? If it flies well and feels fine, I don't really think it matters what kind of top it has.

 

[hugheshilton]

See those ones on the right , THOSE are Destroyers, very rounded at the nose. Sometimes they have big pop tops and sometimes they're flat across but they are always more of a round shape.

Funny though, the 2 pics you have on the right look totally different from each other. The AJ has a very PD2-ish top and a higher PLH than the Wiggins destroyer whereas the SDS has a very gradual dome with lower PLH than the Wiggins destroyer. It wouldn't surprise me if all 3 of those you have pictured actually have different tops.

I'm not sure what you think validates the 2 on the right as REAL destoyers whereas the Wiggins is not. I suspect that in 2 or 3 years when they tweak the mold again (or change how they're cooling the discs or whatever it is that is causing the differences), there will be angry people posting pictures of the Wiggins destroyers compared to whatever the newer version is stating how the Wiggins one is a REAL destroyer.

 

[SlappyMcGruff]

I just got 2 or these and a new car star and all have that same top. They look like when they changed the teerex years ago trying to make it more overstable.

 

[cjman]

I just got 2 or these and a new car star and all have that same top. They look like when they changed the teerex years ago trying to make it more overstable.

I concur, the "new AJ" has been replaced by a newer AJ.

 

[DannyThunders]

Funny though, the 2 pics you have on the right look totally different from each other. The AJ has a very PD2-ish top and a higher PLH than the Wiggins destroyer whereas the SDS has a very gradual dome with lower PLH than the Wiggins destroyer. It wouldn't surprise me if all 3 of those you have pictured actually have different tops.

I'm not sure what you think validates the 2 on the right as REAL destoyers whereas the Wiggins is not. I suspect that in 2 or 3 years when they tweak the mold again (or change how they're cooling the discs or whatever it is that is causing the differences), there will be angry people posting pictures of the Wiggins destroyers compared to whatever the newer version is stating how the Wiggins one is a REAL destroyer.

Pay attention to the top mold right near the edge, it has a clear rounded shape (The pd2 top has a dip before sloping up to the center in pop top shape and the S/ds has a more gradual sloping dome) Now notice how the wiggins Destroyer does not have the rounded edge, it comes out flat in a straight line up to where the top of the wing meets the dome. This shape first start showing up on Destroyers a while ago during the *DS run and people called them Vulcan tops because they resembled the top of the Vulcan. For the most part they were glideless and understable compared to the regularly shaped Destroyers (both the flat and pop top ones). The vulcan top is more obvious the flatter the disc is.

 

[hugheshilton]

Pay attention to the top mold right near the edge, it has a clear rounded shape (The pd2 top has a dip before sloping up to the center in pop top shape and the S/ds has a more gradual sloping dome) Now notice how the wiggins Destroyer does not have the rounded edge, it comes out flat in a straight line up to where the top of the wing meets the dome. This shape first start showing up on Destroyers a while ago during the *DS run and people called them Vulcan tops because they resembled the top of the Vulcan. For the most part they were glideless and understable compared to the regularly shaped Destroyers (both the flat and pop top ones). The vulcan top is more obvious the flatter the disc is.

I understand what you are saying, and I can see the difference. My point was that the 2 destroyers you held up as real destroyers both had different tops. They were obviously not the same top. Innova has screwed around with the destroyer top before and they will again. I think in order to judge these destroyers, we will have to wait for some people who are actually throwing them to report on the flight, but I wouldn't assume these aren't real destroyers just because Innova has tweaked the top again. They are real destroyers just like the PD2-topped destroyer you showed a picture of is a real destroyer. I also wouldn't assume that they fly exactly like the previous run of "Vulcan-topped" destroyers you reference because these are a different run of discs and, given the high PLH, they are probably fairly stable. I wouldn't judge them until you throw them or have some solid reports from people you trust who throw them.

 

[TrippinBill]

Sometimes I think that disc golfers must be the craziest group of people on this planet.

 

[SpringDgLover]

Wiggins Destroyers = Vulcan Topped, wont touch them with a ten foot pole. New AJ's = good topped and are awesome. Period lets move on.

 

[HiFi]

Sometimes I think that disc golfers must be the craziest group of people on this planet.

You trippin B

I actually like the Destroyers with the smooth transition plates. They beat in to have a **** ton of glide.

 

[HiFi]

Destrulcan. You can't sit here and tell me the Wiggins look like this.

Stolen pic btw. My arms are like oaks.

 

[SpringDgLover]

I can, they have a straight edged rim not round, may not be that extreme but definitley not what I would call good topped.