I've got a couple new tourney stamped ESP Avengers marked 1.7< What's the deal with these? The two that I have really are less overstable than my 1.8s, they fly kinda like new X's, just a lil' more stable.
I know the run of limited edition ESP Avengers were 1.7, because I try and find them, they're different from the first run ESP Avengers. Slightly less overstable, flatter, and gummier.
All the other ESP Avengers I have are first runs, stiffer plastic, and are beefy, I haven't thrown any newer non first runs.
Well,it is a stamp malfunction.Any change in stability is just luck!Or in your mind Are you prone to suggestion Go for the color you like .Sometimes the pigment makes the plastic shrink more on cooling, causing some wicked effects.
ronconversjr wrote:Well,it is a stamp malfunction.Any change in stability is just luck!Or in your mind Are you prone to suggestion Go for the color you like .Sometimes the pigment makes the plastic shrink more on cooling, causing some wicked effects.
I figured as much, because of how soft they were. But its not in my mind, The change isn't enough to matter, It's still an Avenger, Its just not a pig when new like my stiff 1st runs, or CryZtals. I haven't thrown any other Avengers in any plastic since those. I guess I should.
ronconversjr wrote:just for future reference,What color were the flippy ones?
They weren't flippy at all, just straighter, longer, than my "pigs". I pretty much just wanted to know what was up with the stamp, I just babble a lot.
But they were yellow, soft, and domey.
Like I said, it's been a while since I've thrown any reg. production Avengers, I'm going to pick a few of each up in Z and ESP to see if it's just because I haven't thrown them in a while.
It probably is just that the stiff 1st runs and CryZtals are beef.
Plamen has an ESP Tracker that says 1.8. The ESP Surge says 1.7. I didn't think the Tracker was more overstable than the Surge.
I don't care for Innova's flight numbers any better.
I would like to know more about comparisons between high speed and low speed fade between different discs. I thought the relationship was fairly close with all discs until trying the DGA Rouge. At high speeds, this disc goes fairly straight. Oddly, it turns over very late in the flight, making this a useful discs for straight or turnover shots.
I'm wondering how speed and glide are determined. Speed is probably pretty easy and glide could be as well. How do the relationships between the two vary from disc to disc?
It's all obviously based on the human guesswork. What we need is something that can test or measure a disc's performance consistently.
I think it would take entirely to much time and money to make something that would take closer measurements. And also the flight ratings would come up much too complicated. You'd have to have different ratings at different speeds, spin, as well as different ratings for drivers, mids, and putters. Then you'd have to take into account things like you said, a Rogue compared to Surge, or a Tracker compared to an Avenger, while they maybe close to each other at high speeds, their flight would be different.
For example, say you throw a Surge and a Rogue at idk, 350' worth of power. They could fly the same for the majority of the flight, but the Surge will end up fading more. Then you would have to take into account that if you put more torque into the throw, you could flip the Rogue, and the Surge could go flat, or you could throw lower power, and they would fly almost the same. Just as with the Tracker and Avenger. The different rims are going to effect the flight, and even though it would be possible to put them on the same line, same power, there's just too many variables that you're not going to get a simple rating because of something like a bead, or a flatter rim.
You'd have to have different ratings for different speed too. That's why you could call an Avenger SS .5, and a Buzzz .5 the higher speed and profile is going to make the driver much more susceptible to flip at high speeds, but not lower.
Too complicated. So you get guidelines, then you get technology advances, different shapes, and guidelines change.
I think it would make it simpler, not more complicated.
If you had a disc shooter that released flat (with calm conditions) at a certain velocity and spin, you could give universal ratings for each disc. Using several different speeds and spins wouldn't be necessary as they could be measured as the disc slows down with the same shot.
I think the main reason this hasn't been done yet other than a lack of engineering for such a device is that it would hurt disc sales for many models. If the numbers showed several discs to be inferior, people would stop buying them.
Not to argue here, but...until we have an accurate method of measuring spin...then a way to overcome all the different disc shapes, rim depths/configurations - with respect to release/rip-point etc...
Essentially this is a pipe~dream, IMHO...compared to striking a little ball repeatedly the same way.
Just recently I saw a golf ball that had dimples w/in the dimples...and yes, the claim was greater distance potential.
Is a Cheetah inferior to a Wraith? Not to a beginner...where even the Cheetah would be too much disc for them.
But how would you make up for different speeds? Say you do make a "disc slinger" it would have to adjust perfectly for every different disc out there, and when something different comes along, you'd have to make adjustments and new parts. And you would have to make a building that the climate, air quality could be completely controlled to an extreme standard.
Then you put a putter and driver to the test. What would you be able to do to measure stability? The driver is made handle high speeds, but not a putter. If you did the same test, you would get very different results. Example= Challenger vs. Flash. Put at the same speed, spin, etc, etc, the Challenger could go straight the whole flight, the Flash could just dive. Or a Pred vs. a Flick, A Flick is faster, so it could flip, because of how it displaces the air. Maybe one disc would fly insanely overstable at 325' compared to another at the same distance/speed/spin, but then you go up 75' and the insanely overstable one ends up flying less stable then the other? These are just theoretical, but the point is, even with the exact same conditions, there are going to be very different results. So if a Flash flips in these tests, and a Challenger doesn't, would that make it more overstable? Or if a Wasp stays more stable in these "perfect" conditions than a Drone, would that make sense to the consumer?
What would the perfect conditions be? I don't think there is an answer, you would have to set different standards for each disc type, rim configurations. Too many variables.
What i think would be cool is an indoor golf screen. In ball golf you can go to places that have a big screen that shows a fairway and you tee up and shoot at the screen. The computer reads the flight of the ball from the tee to the screen and give you an acurate look at what that shot would be like for the rest of its flight. It gives you distance speed and even shows you hooks and slices as they would be off the club head.
If some one could come up with the same thing for disc golf that would be cool. They would have to put in to the computer what disc is being thrown and then have the computer take into acount of the angle the disc was released , the speed of the disc and speed of the rotation of the disc. also you would have to take into acount right or left hand throw and what syle of throw such as back hand forhand. thumber or even a roller shot. .. hmmmm something to look into though. eh?
Are you prone to suggestion 
Go for the color you like .Sometimes the pigment makes the plastic shrink more on cooling, causing some wicked effects.
