PDGA Tech Standards Opinion Poll

[airspuds]

This went into my bulk folder.

Did anyone else get this email ?

I assume that it is because of Quest with a couple of their products.

-------


As you may know, the PDGA Technical Standards Committee (TSC) is about
to undertake a review of the technical standards and procedures. This
review has been requested by the PDGA Board as part of a general
development of organizational procedures.

As part of this review process, the Technical Standards Committee is
gathering feedback from a wide range of stakeholders who are affected by
these rules. Perhaps the most important part of that feedback should
come from our member players. Therefore, we have set up a poll to gather
opinions on some of the key topics of interest.

In order to provide a framework for the feedback that we are
requesting, we thought that it would be helpful to provide some background on the
current standards and procedures. As you know, the current PDGA
guidelines can be found at:
http://pdga.com/documents/tech_standards/PDGATechStandards.pdf

The listing of approved equipment is at:

http://pdga.com/discs.php

The bulk of the current standards were initially put into place by PDGA
between 1983 and 1994. The prime intention of the standards was to
provide guidelines for disc golf equipment, allowing fair competition.
However, beyond this specific goal, the standards also had two secondary
intentions:

1. To establish disc design limitations that would provide protection
for course dimensions and layout. This was done with the knowledge that
the standards would disallow certain designs that would possibly be
more effective.

2. To establish standards that would provide a predictable set of
guidelines for manufacturers.

Selection of the specific standards involved several additional
considerations:

1. The testing procedures were specifically selected in order to make
it relatively easy and inexpensive for manufacturers to perform the
required procedures. Although there were more sophisticated measures
available for some of the dimensions, the cost of the more conventional
measurement procedures was deemed unnecessary.

2. When the initial standards were put into place, consideration was
given to the existing equipment. That is, the standards were designed to
include all of the popular molds that were in use at the time. This was
done to minimize any disruption to the existing manufacturers.

3. Although the design guidelines have never been presented as
“safety” guidelines, it is obviously important that the game not be
dangerous for players or others and the equipment guidelines should contribute
to that goal.

Now that over twenty years have passed since the introduction of these
standards, it seems reasonable to review how the system has functioned
and how well we have been meeting our initial goals. It also seems that
we should consider whether or not some of these goals have changed.
From a practical standpoint, it’s worthy to note that just under 300
discs have been approved for PDGA (and WFDF) play under this system.
Obviously, this process could not have worked at any level without the
cooperation of disc manufacturers. It is for that reason that we so highly
value their input at this time.  However, there clearly can be
differences of opinion on these matters and it is the obligation of the TSC to
evaluate the full range of input as part of its recommendation to the
Board.  The TSC approaches this review with a key consideration in mind.
Because there are now such a large number of stakeholders in the disc
golf community, we do approach this review with a relatively
conservative stance. That is, while we want to take this opportunity to fix any
problems or difficulties that the system may now include, we do realize
that many people have made large investments in the current standards
and that some changes could be extremely disruptive. For instance,
there’s nothing magic about 21 cm, but a change to 20 cm as the new
minimum radius would have a radical impact on disc and target production.
Some other changes obviously could be made with little or no negative
impact. That impact will be part of our consideration on all changes to the
standards, weighing the intended benefits against the possible
disruption for all stakeholders.

So, with these factors in mind, we ask you to consider a number of
specific questions about our technical standards for disc golf. These
questions are presented in an online poll at:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=Up5LwGRoE8Eqznc6Ei2bfw_3d_3d

The poll will take only a few minutes to complete and will be available
until October 20th.


Jeff Homburg and Dan Roddick for the PDGA Technical Standards Committee

http://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx?sm=Up5LwGRoE8Eqznc6Ei2bfw_3d_3d

[pickax]

It may also be instigated by the Starfire and SL. What makes a disc a new disc? A new name? A new stamp? the addition/removal of a bead (think Aviar)? Innova is causing this just as much as Quest (but in a completely different manner).

[mirth]

Got the email. Did the poll. I say let innovation rule!

[pickax]

Innovation is a good thing, but the survey seems kind of pointless. For example the survey asks if the minimum radius should be reduced for discs. They don't really go into the fact that at a certain point the discs would fall through the bottom of some baskets if made smaller. If you don't understand this impact of certain changes, then what's the point? They need to refine the process of when a tweaked disc needs to be retested. But they only focus on name changes and not mold changes. It's like they completely dropped the ball with this one. Personally, the survey was not written well and probably a waste of money. Hopefully I'm wrong.

[mirth]

at least surveymonkey tends to be free... no?

[jsun3thousand]

Whether the they paid for it or not, the survey is methodologically sad and flawed. Jason 

[Working Stiff]

The report is out:

http://pdga.com/documents/tech_standards/PDGA_Tech_Update_Report.pdf

[stpitner]

Interesting to note - it looks like from some of the changes that were made to the report included moving the max width of the wing to go from 2.3cm to 2.6cm as the max width.  I know that the destroyer was right at 2.3cm... not sure what the Double D was, perhaps it was 2.6cm?  It sure did feel pretty thick.

There were a bunch of other changes as well, but I didn't take the time to read them over.

[pickax]

Quest had two that were slightly over 2.6. I'm waiting for what the Wheel II will look like with the new standards.

[Working Stiff]

Yeah, the standards they approved had a lot of changes.  This should be the actual document they adopted.

http://pdga.com/documents/tech_standards/PDGATechStandards_08_edit.pdf