Weighing Discs

[chainsmoker]

I'm reviving a really old one here, so many memories
I got a sparkle Teebird a few weeks ago that is marked 175 but it felt kind of heavy, out on the course it flies right between my champ Teebirds and a Z Pred. I got a scale today that my brother used to use in his lab at work and the sparkle Teebird weighs 177.2. All of my other discs are pretty close to what they are marked but the ones that are way off are max weight and they all are heavier than marked. I guess this makes sense so manufacturers don't have to X out perfect looking discs due to being over weight.

[Frank Delicious]

That is pretty overweight.

Back when I first got into wizards Gateway was still running the 5 for $25 or $30 deal on x-out wizards and I remember getting a couple from those deals that were super overweight. I think I had a 182 wizard at one point.

Really though I wouldn't worry about that disc too much. Just keep throwing it. I mean it really isn't your responsibility to weigh every disc you buy, especially considering no tourney requires a weigh in of discs.

[iacas]

Really though I wouldn't worry about that disc too much. Just keep throwing it. I mean it really isn't your responsibility to weigh every disc you buy, especially considering no tourney requires a weigh in of discs.

If a disc is knowingly overweight I think the player has an obligation to not play it in a tournament. Doing otherwise is knowingly violating the rules.

[Frank Delicious]

I am a rules violator b/c according to my scale a decent amount of my max weight DX rocs weight 181 or 182 when new. Maybe they started out that way at Innova or maybe they absorbed some moisture after they were weighed or maybe my scale is different than Innova's scale. Whatever the reason is I'm still going to throw them.

[chainsmoker]

I guess I was more concerned flight wise, Max weight seems to be the biggest offender so I guess I could just by 179 Rocs and 174 Teebirds if I was worried about it. It's funny when I picked up the 177.2 gram Teebird it felt heavy, If you handed me a couple weights that were only 2.2 grams apart I bet I couldn't tell.

[discspeed]

There is a 2.5g tolerance on the weight rule(to allow for water weight absorbed by discs), not that it's really enforceable at any capacity. So your discs can be 2.5g overweight and you aren't breaking any (unenforceable) rules.

[iacas]

There is a 2.5g tolerance on the weight rule(to allow for water weight absorbed by discs), not that it's really enforceable at any capacity. So your discs can be 2.5g overweight and you aren't breaking any (unenforceable) rules.

Please point me to this 2.5g tolerance on the weight rule.

I've looked for ten minutes or so now and the only references to it are people posting on forums.

The technical specs from the PDGA seem to say nothing about it, instead saying simply:
(4) not exceed 8.3 g per cm of outside disc diameter;

A Wizard that weighs 174.4 grams would be illegal, one weighing 174.3 would be legal.



21.0 * 8.3 = 174.3

[discspeed]

The weight of plastic is not static. It gains and loses water weight, and this can account for several grams. If a disc is legal at 175 when you buy it in Nevada, and then you go to Florida and it weighs 177 it does not become illegal.

This is why the real point of all this is that this rule is unenforceable, and if it is ever in a condition to be enforced there will have to be a tolerance.

[iacas]

The weight of plastic is not static. It gains and loses water weight, and this can account for several grams. If a disc is legal at 175 when you buy it in Nevada, and then you go to Florida and it weighs 177 it does not become illegal.

I disagree. The rules don't seem to say that at all. If the disc is 177 grams and has a limit of 174.3, it's illegal at 177 (and 174.4 too). If that's incorrect, please prove it - show me where in the rules this 2.5g allowance exists, or where it's covered under the rules that once a disc is weighed it's good forever and can gain x amount of weight.

This is why the real point of all this is that this rule is unenforceable, and if it is ever in a condition to be enforced there will have to be a tolerance.

Golf balls have to weigh no more than 1.62 ounces and have a diameter of at least 1.68 inches. They manage to make millions of them to those tight specifications and there is no tolerance allowed.

I disagree. It seems as if you're saying what you think the rules should be and not what they actually are.

I agree that the rule isn't very enforceable. Scales would have to be calibrated and all that headache and crap. But if I have a disc I know is overweight, I will not play it, and think it's reasonable to expect that others follow the rules and not play their overweight discs.

FWIW: http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of ... endix-III/

2. Weight
The weight of the ball must not be greater than 1.620 ounces avoirdupois (45.93 g).

3. Size
The diameter of the ball must not be less than 1.680 inches (42.67 mm).

[Frank Delicious]

The quality standards in golf manufacturers are much tighter and better than the ones in disc golf manufacturers. It is hard to make comparisons between the two because of that. I remember watching some old gateway videos of Dave and some dude molding discs and it looks like two dudes in a basement molding discs.

[iacas]

The quality standards in golf manufacturers are much tighter and better than the ones in disc golf manufacturers. It is hard to make comparisons between the two because of that. I remember watching some old gateway videos of Dave and some dude molding discs and it looks like two dudes in a basement molding discs.

Yeah, I know. One sleeve of premium golf balls sells for as much as most premium plastic discs (or more) and most guys will use one ball for six to twelve holes or so (if they don't lose it before that). More money in golf...

I'm still eager to see the rules that say there's a 2.5g tolerance or the rule that says when you weigh a disc once it's good forever or a period of time.

I agree that it's not a rule you can easily enforce, but it's one I can personally enforce on my own discs and play (when I get to the point where I'm playing tournaments).

[discspeed]

I'm not sure when or where on the forums (here or PDGA)the discussion was taking place, but I know Dave McCormack was leading the discussion and if I'm not mistaken Chuck Kennedy chimed in as well.

I'm also saying that plastic discs are different than golf balls, and that will never change. Lets say a top pro goes out to Innova west at a time of year with really low humidity and picks out a bag full of discs weighing exactly max. He then goes to Florida and it is really humid. After a short time in that climate all of his discs would be overweight. This would be a constant problem for touring pros as they traveled if discs were weighed it at tournaments without a tolerance. Either that or manufacturers would stop aiming for max weight at all and we'd barely see any discs above 170 circulating just to make certain they wouldn't be overweight in a different climate.

[Ryan C]

I would also say that 180g is right about the sweet spot where weight can be an advantage. Much heavier than than, and you're just talking about a seriously heavy disc, which will make you lose arm speed and distance. Things like rim width and weight just don't seem like things that need to be too strictly regulated. There is a point where they both cease to be an advantage, and really start working against you. Rules like rim sharpness, on the other hand, seem more reasonable for safety reasons.

[discspeed]

I would also say that 180g is right about the sweet spot where weight can be an advantage. Much heavier than than, and you're just talking about a seriously heavy disc, which will make you lose arm speed and distance. Things like rim width and weight just don't seem like things that need to be too strictly regulated. There is a point where they both cease to be an advantage, and really start working against you. Rules like rim sharpness, on the other hand, seem more reasonable for safety reasons.

This is gospel truth for 95% of throwers (most of which don't throw hard enough to even benefit from max weight). However, physics dictates that momentum is mass X velocity. A heavier disc, thrown at the same velocity, has more momentum. This means it takes it longer to slow down or change direction. So someone who is a really strong thrower will throw a heavier disc farther on average.

So guys who throw in the 550'+ range would have an advantage with heavier discs because they would go farther and fly truer on line drives, as well has being less sensitive to OAT (which really powerful throwers often have just a touch of) and wind.

I'm pretty sure the rim width mimics the effects of weight as it increases.

[iacas]

I'm not sure when or where on the forums (here or PDGA)the discussion was taking place, but I know Dave McCormack was leading the discussion and if I'm not mistaken Chuck Kennedy chimed in as well.

I believe I may have read that discussion last night along with some others. Here's one... - http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=23439

"I for one would like to see a tolorance as Urethane discs are Hygroscopic and absorb moisture even after being molded.
This type polymer can gain .02% by weight whether its in the raw materials or in a molded part.
.02% of 175 Grams is 3.5grams."

Ignoring the fact that his math is wrong (0.02% would be 0.035g), he's clearly arguing FOR the institution of a tolerance that does not exist. This person on page two says:

"1-2 grams isn't a huge difference. But as the rules ready now, there isn't a +/- tolerance. A disc can go out of the factory at ANY weight, as long as they mark it 175, it's ok. That doesn't seem right. If they throw out a 185 wraith, and call it 175, that's an advantage. Especially in a head wind."

Now, this was 2006, so maybe they've instituted a tolerance since then, BUT I haven't seen evidence of that yet.

There's also this thread, which I read last night as well: http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=27597 in which Dave also said this:

I think if you check you will find I have been consistent in my philosophy that players are responsible for the equipment that they use to compete with and I have advised all players to check their own equipment to make sure they are playing by the rules. Ignorance is no excuse for the law and in this case the rules!
Facts are, there are overweight discs from all companies in the market, most are just not marked with the correct weight and are being used each and every week in sanctioned events.
:
If the pdga decides to crank up the pressure on the manufactures, it could be a mistake as we ( all companies) are already grinding up perfectly molded and sell able discs because they are just a few grams over weight.

Another poster asks the same question I asked:

Where in the rules do you see the +/-2.5g tolerance; I thought that for a mold that was PDGA legal up to 174.3, if a disc weighs 174.4g it was illegal. -- it would be great to know where to point to that 2.5g tolerance rule, since I have several discs that are overweight (including several Assassins), and it would be nice if they were legal for play.

The response? "David Mac was talking about the tolerance." So clearly that seems to refer to either the 2% tolerance or the fact that Dave will ship a disc out that's within 2.5g (perhaps because he thinks it might eventually dry out enough to be legal, or people will rip enough little chunks out that it will be legal).

Dave posts again:

I believe the pdga may and should incorporate a tolerance on weight due to the fact that discs are Hygroscopic,.
a disc can gain or lose up to .02% by weight.

So not only does he still appear to be getting the difference between 2% and 0.02% wrong, but he is still pointing to the fact that no such tolerance exists.

I'm also saying that plastic discs are different than golf balls, and that will never change. Lets say a top pro goes out to Innova west at a time of year with really low humidity and picks out a bag full of discs weighing exactly max. He then goes to Florida and it is really humid. After a short time in that climate all of his discs would be overweight.

Then his discs would be illegal.

This would be a constant problem for touring pros as they traveled if discs were weighed it at tournaments without a tolerance. Either that or manufacturers would stop aiming for max weight at all and we'd barely see any discs above 170 circulating just to make certain they wouldn't be overweight in a different climate.

Some discs go up to almost 180. And regardless, so be it. That is the rule. 8.3 grams per centimeter of width. If the max weight is 174.3 for a disc, that's the max weight. It's not "so long as it's less than 178" or "close enough at 174.9."