Wow. This category is quiet today, so I thought I'd try to start something up.

Yesterday I figured out how to get one of my discs to turnover about 1/3 of the way into its flight. Needless to say, this helped my game quite a bit, but I can't tell exactly what I am doing to make this happen, even though I can turn it on and off.

What I think I'm doing is getting more spin on the disc. At least, that's what I was trying to do when I discovered this technique. However, my understanding was that turnover is caused more by higher disc speed with less spin. Is that incorrect?

So a couple of questions, assume a stable disc with a flat release:

1) What happens to a discs flight characteristics as you increase the amount of spin, and lower the amount of speed (or is it acceleration?) at release.

2) What happens to the discs flight characteristics as you increase the amount of speed (acceleration?), and decrease the amount of spin at release?

3) What if you increase both spin, and speed(acceleration?)?

4) At some point is there a trade off between spin, and speed? I imagine eventually you can't increase one without decreasing the other...

I actually believe I have improved my "snap" a bit, because I can now feel the disc ripping out of my hand, and a small blister has formed on my middle finger, second knuckle. So another related question:

I use a fan/pinch grip, and I know I am losing a bit of potential distance becase my grip is not that strong, and when I get a really good snap, the disc usually flies to the left (RHBH) due to early release. However, the only adjustment I've been able to make to counter this effect is to hold the disc tighter. If I switch to any sort of grip where any of the fingers are curled under the rim rather than just pressed against the surface, I suffer from "Grip lock". The disc doesn't leave my hand until midway through the follow-through, and then flies way to the right. Any grip advice? Suggestions for grip modifications? Thanks!

I honestly believe you will only recieve slightly biased responces, and not the precise answer your looking for. You could post on the "ask Dave" thread.

Some people, like me break their wrists which tends to make alot of discs turn over. I when I get home tonight I will try to send you a pdf of a thesis someone wrote on the flight characteristics and aerodynamics of flying discs. I have not had time to read it due to my own graduate studies, but it may be helpful.

I honestly believe you will only recieve slightly biased responces, and not the precise answer your looking for. You could post on the "ask Dave" thread.

Some people, like me break their wrists which tends to make alot of discs turn over. I when I get home tonight I will try to send you a pdf of a thesis someone wrote on the flight characteristics and aerodynamics of flying discs. I have not had time to read it due to my own graduate studies, but it may be helpful.



That makes sense. As I said in my original post, I know what results I'm getting, and how to get them, but not exactly why I am getting them. I suspect the same may be true for a lot of people. I'd love to read that thesis, though if it is academic, it may be above my head.

How about the grip lock issue? That should be more straightforward....

thanks

That makes sense. As I said in my original post, I know what results I'm getting, and how to get them, but not exactly why I am getting them. I suspect the same may be true for a lot of people. I'd love to read that thesis, though if it is academic, it may be above my head.

How about the grip lock issue? That should be more straightforward....

thanks



To get a good throw using a power grip I find I have to have my timing just right. If I start my pull too early I'll end up with a late release. One thing that I find helps is to start my reach back later in the run up. I was reaching back slowly throughout the runup and then trying to uncoil quickly at the right time. If I make the whole motion faster I have a more fluid throw and seems to help with my timing but YMMV.

Also, just backing off on my power seems to fix a lot of problems I have when I try and throw far. If I just concentrate on doing everything right instead of trying to throw far I get a better throw.

I use a slightly modified power grip (3 instead of 4 fingers) and although grip lock is not a problem concerning the grip, it is just a non-thinking mistake. Beginners do it more often but I have seen top pros grip lock during practice rounds, usually while talking to someone, or checking out a good looking girl on the course....distractions, distractions.

Just when I/you/we/them have it figured out...someone else will post with a compelling arguement as to why it's all wrong. Tough subject!

I think we all seem to impart our own speed/spin 'signature' when we throw. For instance: It was said somewhere in here that Chris "Max" Voight throws close to - if not more than - 80 mph...and that Ken/Marc Jarvis throws in the 50's (mph). The former 'held' the world record, and was eclipsed by the latter a couple of years later by nearly 100'!!!! GO FIGURE!

(My numbers may be a tad off, but only a tad!)

1) What happens to a discs flight characteristics as you increase the amount of spin, and lower the amount of speed (or is it acceleration?) at release.




higher spin, lower speed in general will make a disc fly straighter (more stable) and fade later give a nose down release. some very slow, understable discs can be over-rotated but it takes a very large amount of spin to do this.



2) What happens to the discs flight characteristics as you increase the amount of speed (acceleration?), and decrease the amount of spin at release?




speed and acceleration components are separate vectors. acceleration is responsible for first half flight characteristics whereas velocity is more responsible for second half flight (momentum) although the amount can vary depending upon which vector dominates at the release. greater velocity at release will (generally) make a disc fly more understable first half of the flight and fade later second half. greater acceleration at release will generally make a disc stabilize more quickly at the start (or if the disc is understable, "flip up" beyond flat and turn a little) but it has very little impact upon second half flight as the acceleration/force vector will be spent. a velocity dominated throw is more likely to turn/flatten later in the flight whereas an acceleration dominated throw will generally turn/flatten earlier in the flight. less spin early in the flight will make a disc fly more understable first half and also fade a little earlier second half (which is often a good thing depending upon the type of throw).



3) What if you increase both spin, and speed(acceleration?)?




due to the components of velocity and acceleration, it's very difficult to increase both speed and acceleration.
velocity = change in D/t
acceleration = change in V/t
force = mass x A
lets say a 3' reachback takes the disc from 0 to 60mph in 1 second and a 1.5' reachback takes the disc from 0 to 40mph in 0.5 seconds. V1 = 60, A1 = 60. V2 = 40, A2 = 80. F1 < F2. imo, there is probably a balance point sort of like the physics problem of what angle you should fire the cannonball to get maximum carry? always 45 degrees... there should lie some balance of velocity and acceleration that yields the most efficient D if all other factors can be held constant. however, the greater the velocity, generally the harder it is to get the timing of the snap, and so there will usually be some acceleration loss during the throw as velocity increases. as for spin, it's something i generally only think about for certain types of shots as increasing/decreasing it generally won't yield a significant amount of D for most controlled drives. however, for say a big S shot, you generally will want the disc to fade in the forward direction and so you won't want so much spin that it hits the ground without fading etc.



4) At some point is there a trade off between spin, and speed? I imagine eventually you can't increase one without decreasing the other...




spin on the disc is manipulated more by the release of the lock before the rip during the throw. the stronger the lock, the more spin will be generated at the rip. however, the greater the rip, the greater the acceleration and this is usually achieved by greater pressure on the disc rim into the seam of the hand. any friction of the disc leaving will take away from the velocity vector, but in terms of throwing mechanics, D achieved from snap is much more efficient than pure velocity.

On another thread a claim that a sidearm has more spin than a BH was made... Me thinks it the other way around. There's always exceptions, but what is your opinion, Blake?

Yesterday I figured out how to get one of my discs to turnover about 1/3 of the way into its flight. Needless to say, this helped my game quite a bit, but I can't tell exactly what I am doing to make this happen, even though I can turn it on and off.




this either can be caused by increased snap, or more commonly, possibly due to some torque during the rip as you enter your follow through...



I actually believe I have improved my "snap" a bit, because I can now feel the disc ripping out of my hand, and a small blister has formed on my middle finger, second knuckle. So another related question:

I use a fan/pinch grip, and I know I am losing a bit of potential distance becase my grip is not that strong, and when I get a really good snap, the disc usually flies to the left (RHBH) due to early release. However, the only adjustment I've been able to make to counter this effect is to hold the disc tighter. If I switch to any sort of grip where any of the fingers are curled under the rim rather than just pressed against the surface, I suffer from "Grip lock". The disc doesn't leave my hand until midway through the follow-through, and then flies way to the right. Any grip advice? Suggestions for grip modifications? Thanks!



first off, with the fan grip you are describing, your rip point = the middle finger and so focusing that as a point of strength will do more to benefit your throw than the index finger.

secondly, as for the early release, i'm willing to bet that it is caused by your left shoulder/chest pushing the disc out early and probably caused by your upper body coming through a hair late (relative to footwork) or your left shoulder coming through early.

lastly, as for griplock, this is usually caused by a variety of timing/balance factors but i'd be willing to wager it is one of these four:
1) your upper body is coming through early in relation to your footwork.
2) your body is too upright during the throw (weight too far back) and you are not leaning into/through the shot.
3) you are changing the plane of the disc early and not getting enough snap to get the disc to rip out at the right time. by this i mean if you have the disc at say a 20 degree hyzer and then follow through flat, this will act as a bit of roll over. if the disc hasn't left your hand before the change, it will steal from your snap and want to hang on since the vector has changed directions. something interesting i've noticed with most of the good distance throwers is that almost all of them follow through high on every shot (even turnovers).
4) you are being strong too early and not getting good timing on the snap/rip. snap is incidental motion caused by the disc coming through at the right time in relation to the extension of the elbow. a common griplock problem of this is that a lot of people try to be stronger and yank the disc hard BEFORE the rip begins (whereas a hard pull AT the rip is required for max D potential). up until the rip your body/arm should be relatively loose. this is definitely the hardest of the 4 to fix if it is the culprit.

On another thread a claim that a sidearm has more spin than a BH was made... Me thinks it the other way around. There's always exceptions, but what is your opinion, Blake?



i don't know much about sidearm throws but what i do know about it is... finesse type flick sidearm shots generally can achieve much greater spin than shorter range backhand throws. on max D throws, with backhand you can always add more spin as you add more snap whereas on sidearm drives due to the nature of the stroke, generally you cannot add more spin very easily as you increase strength and most likely will have peak spin that is (nearly) equal to the amount of spin on those flick shots. as for turnover issues with sidearm (i haven't read the thread you are referencing) a lot of it imo is due to the nature/form of the stroke. many players have this turn due to a variety of factors that occur during the motion, increased nose down and a pull tendency (aka slight annie/torque). there are players with great sidearm form that can throw nearly any shot but most do not fall into this category. as the stroke comes across the body, the tendency of the vector is to change direction slightly to the left and lower which is going to act as a bit of roll over. to see what i'm talking about try and execute a sidearm hyzer flip S that closely resembles the flight path of a backhand hyzer flip S... it's possible, but very technical and i have only met a handful of players who can execute this consistently. the general trend (not in all cases) is for players to just step up in disc stability to compensate for the nature of the stroke.

Blake:

Sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning regarding acceleration and speed. Given that the disc becomes free-flying the instant it leaves the hand, the acceleration that it underwent in achieving its launch velocity is irrelevant to its subsequent flight. Velocity and spin are the two principal energy-related main factors imposed by the thrower. (Of course, release angle is also a biggie, but that is another issue.) To impart more acceleration you have to exert more force (and maybe a good loud grunt) to achieve a given velocity, but as long as this greater accleration has not actually resulted in a higher release velocity or different spin rate (or different release angle), it is irrelevant to the subsequent flight of the disc.

Blake:

Sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning regarding acceleration and speed. Given that the disc becomes free-flying the instant it leaves the hand, the acceleration that it underwent in achieving its launch velocity is irrelevant to its subsequent flight. Velocity and spin are the two principal energy-related main factors imposed by the thrower. (Of course, release angle is also a biggie, but that is another issue.) To impart more acceleration you have to exert more force (and maybe a good loud grunt) to achieve a given velocity, but as long as this greater accleration has not actually resulted in a higher release velocity or different spin rate (or different release angle), it is irrelevant to the subsequent flight of the disc.



I had the same initial reaction. My understanding is that he's talking about the throw in terms of the acceleration and velocity of your throw rather than talking about the flight of the disc in terms of velocity and spin. MadCow asked some questions regarding how the disc flies and is trying to equate that back to altering his throw. Blake just turned it around and told him how the disc flies given different throws. He's not explicitly saying what ratio of spin to speed will give you different flights, but he's explaining how different throws will give you different ratios of spin to speed and different flights.

You can also think of it this way: in MadCow's scenerio, he's giving the spin and speed, not giving the arm motion and asking for the flight path. In Blake's scenerio, he's giving the arm motion, not giving the spin and speed and giving the flight path.

In short, he's saying that accelrating your arm more will give you a different amount of spin and a different flight path than moving your arm just as fast with less acceleration.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...I wrote this to help me understand it as well.

wow, there's a lot of new info to digest in this thread!




Yesterday I figured out how to get one of my discs to turnover about 1/3 of the way into its flight...



this either can be caused by increased snap, or more commonly, possibly due to some torque during the rip as you enter your follow through...



i've actually dealt with this torque issue in the past, especially when i would try to throw a pronounced hyzer. i believe i've dealt with it pretty well by masking a point to follow through on the same plane as my throw, though i readily admit that it's possible that i'm still torquing it. a few things lead me to believe that i'm not:
1) When I was torquing it, it would flip up, and turnover from a significant hyzer angle, and it would happen right away, not ~1/3 of the way into the flight from a flat release.
2) Now when I throw hyzer the disc doesn't turnover (but does flatten out).
3) The disc is a168g X Comet, and it's starting to get "worn in", so I imagine it's actually pretty understable. This doesn't happen with my other discs (Storm, XD, Leopard).
4) This recent development came about when I changed my grip, and started focusing on developing snap.

What do you think?



first off, with the fan grip you are describing, your rip point = the middle finger and so focusing that as a point of strength will do more to benefit your throw than the index finger.



Noted, rather than just all around gripping tighter, I will focus more on the rip point.



secondly, as for the early release, i'm willing to bet that it is caused by your left shoulder/chest pushing the disc out early and probably caused by your upper body coming through a hair late (relative to footwork) or your left shoulder coming through early.



I'll try to focus on those issues my next time out.



lastly, as for griplock, this is usually caused by a variety of timing/balance factors but i'd be willing to wager it is one of these four:
1) your upper body is coming through early ...
2) your body is too upright during the throw ...
3) you are changing the plane of the disc early ...
4) you are being strong too early ...



****. could easily be any one of those, though i'd venture a guess that it's either 3, or 4, unfortunately. i'll just stick to my fan grip until i can get some in person advice from a better player.

My understanding is that he's talking about the throw in terms of the acceleration and velocity of your throw rather than talking about the flight of the disc in terms of velocity and spin. ... In short, he's saying that accelrating your arm more will give you a different amount of spin and a different flight path than moving your arm just as fast with less acceleration.



ah, that clears up the acceleration vs velocity issue for me.

My understanding is that he's talking about the throw in terms of the acceleration and velocity of your throw rather than talking about the flight of the disc in terms of velocity and spin. ... In short, he's saying that accelrating your arm more will give you a different amount of spin and a different flight path than moving your arm just as fast with less acceleration.



ah, that clears up the acceleration vs velocity issue for me.



Then I hope I got it right. ;) I like these threads because something new always comes up that I either hadn't read, or didn't actually process before.

I honestly believe you will only recieve slightly biased responces, and not the precise answer your looking for. You could post on the "ask Dave" thread.

Some people, like me break their wrists which tends to make alot of discs turn over. I when I get home tonight I will try to send you a pdf of a thesis someone wrote on the flight characteristics and aerodynamics of flying discs. I have not had time to read it due to my own graduate studies, but it may be helpful.



I want a copy too, is that possible?

Is this the Thesis you are talking about?

http://clue.eng.iastate.edu/~dano/Docs/Final%20Paper%20Brian.pdf

Yes this is the thesis I was talking about. Actually I am going to sit down and read it now.

It doesn't get interesting untill pg 47.

I glanced over the papers once or twice and a few questions pop out.
One is:
The golf disc tested claims to be an eagle.
The paper notes the importance of accurate measurements of disc geometry. That makes me wonder why the disc used measure 20.1. Is it the wrong disc or wrong measurement?
By looks the closest disc would actually be our "H" Sabre or maybe the Dragon, excpet the wings are more concaved in both of these discs. Actually it looks similiar to the discwing disc. None of which measure 20.1cm!

Secondly,
Can an accurate account of predicting a discs flight be recorded with the spinning discs being stabilized by the rod that spins it. Maybe I didnt look close enough, did the disc have the ability to rise up and down freely as lift was created?
In the embodiment of innova's golf disc patent, it clearly states that the utility function of the disc is based on the gryscopic effect of the spin and transferring of energy to the mass. The claims are made that as the disc spins the flight plate is lowered when the ( enertia?)is transfered to the mass, as the disc losses revolutions the flight plate domes back up. I've always questioned this phenomenon, but the question here is. would it be possible to test for this with a rod stabalizing the flight plate.

I'm sure these questions are for the author, but several here seem to have enough knowledge to at least make a speculation.

garublador:
Good summation. I was a bit confused at first by Blake's mentioning velocity and acceleration, as once the disc leaves your hand, there is no further acceleration (except downwards towards the center of the earth, due to gravity).
The disc achieves terminal velocity at the rip.
With every throw and with every disc, there is a ratio of spin to speed or velocity. When this ratio is balanced perfectly, the disc will achieve maximum lift and stability and will fly further.
Great velocity with not enough spin will cause a disc to turn over. This is why many forehand (sidearm) throwers have trouble with discs turning over. Because of the way our bodies are structured, it is inherently more difficult to generate spin with a forehand throw, while at the same time generally easier to throw the disc hard (fast). With a backhand delivery, it is generally much easier to 'snap' the disc and impart a great deal of spin.

Yes this is the thesis I was talking about. Actually I am going to sit down and read it now.

It doesn't get interesting untill pg 47.


Have you read it over yet?

Basically in lemans terms, the paper stated the relationship to spin and speed. Where it was obvious that the discs released with higher velocity obtained further distances, it was also relational to the spin put on the disc. The greater the spin on the disc, the longer it stayed stable and hence went straight, once the disc started to lose spin speed, the disc fell to the left (simulating a RHBH throw). The authors inferred that the greater the spin and speed of the disc the further it would fly. High spin low speed went short but straight, high speed low spin went short and tailed hard left at the end.

So inherently you can believe that the people throwing shots over a legitimate 400ft, have a good combination of spin and speed. Backhand throwers must generate the speed of the disc with their wind up similar to ball golfers and baseball batters, their spin comes form the snap of their wrist. However forearm throwers can acheive this same result with alot less effort (although more fine tuned). The speed and spin of a forehand throw comes all from the wrist movement. The disc accelerates at a greater rate then a backhand due to the limited motion of the disc. And like the backhand the spin is produced by the snaping motion of the wrist.

garu basically summed up what i was trying to explain... that is, how to manipulate the throw to generate said differences in spin, velocity, snap, etc.

the thing that has been neglected so far is that while there is no more forward velocity imparted on the disc after it leaves the hand, its ability to penetrate will be a little dictated by the force vector, which, while it burns out fairly early in flight, does carry over after the disc launch.

a snap dominated throw will fly more like a projectile during the first half of the flight whereas a velocity dominated throw will fly more like a glider. a representation of this is imagine throwing a wide sweeping 45 degree hyzer with an overstable disc. a snap dominated throw is more likely to hold a straight line for longer (even with the steep angle... for say 40-50% of the flight) before fading. think straight then left. a velocity dominated throw is more likely to "catch" and hold the curve for the majority of the flight. snap dominated throws are often (but not always) characterized by more abrupt flight changes during the flight than the gradual turns/fades of a velocity dominated throw.

a lot of it has to do with efficiency. with sufficient snap, it is possible to generate a strong enough force vector to where you can achieve equal D to a throw which has greater velocity but less snap, using much less energy to do so since it harnesses the flexibility/rebound action of tendons.

to Madcow:
the flight you are describing sounds like you are getting legitimate speed turn/flatten out of your comet (nose down, torque free), which is a good thing. my advice for the griplock part is to just focus on being smooth (rather than strong) and leading the shot with your legs/feet and everything should fall into place. once you get a feel for the timing of the mechanics it should be more apparant just when and where you should focus on being strong for max D throws.

I've heard of Ron Russell throwing out a comet (I think) with height about 300' straight and then having it make a right angle turn to the right and carrying on another couple hundred feet.

Is this possible? Can someone explain. I think I've done this on a much smaller scale with an '86 Softie'. Seems like a good utility shot. I think it's all spin that enables this kind of shot.

air bounce with a lot of power. i've seen him do it as well. disc penetrates nose up hyzer (and gets lift), in this case with the disc above its cruise speed. as the disc reaches its cruise speed it flips nose down and flat to slightly turned over. a comet being slightly understable will turn a bit to the right if it is broken in and not fight to fade back very much. with sufficient height this shot can go a long ways.

Blake can you define cruise speed and explain what determines the cruise speed of a disc? is it a speed at which the disc is no longer accelerating and its speed becomes steady?

cruise speed = the velocity range given rpm and nose angle where the disc will fly straight/stable relative to the orientation of the disc.

this is usually only of concern on shots where the disc exceeds cruise speed upon launch.

in the case of an air bounce the disc's orientation is nose up on launch (with a high drag coefficient in the forward direction). there are two ways to look at the flight here. first off is flight in the forward direction, which is fighting the disc's natural orientation. second off is the disc's tendency to fight towards flight reflecting its natural orientation (in this case upwards and to the left).

i'm not sure which vectory (force vs. velocity) is more responsible for the change in disc orientation

It is really cool to read your articulate explanations Blake. I came to disc golf after years of ultimate and my muscle memory wants to airbounce everything. my first problem was the stall and fall. i also wanted to throw even more upwardly for distance which created more stall and fall propensity. evidently putters and older school discs tended to pull their noses down when thrown nose up. i guess new discs have lift and need to be thrown nose down. i still can't throw forehands with golf drivers well because my muscle memory wants to throw nose up and with hyzer.

out of curioisty what discs can be thrown nose up without it increasing the loss of cruise speed? i think putters for one and some midranges. how about a disc like a stingray?
thanks for your time.

Using the terms velocity and acceleration in this context seems unecessarily confusing. A throw with perfect 'snap' will have a higher acceleration and velocity. Once the disk leaves your hand, it immediately begins to lose velocity and there is no acceleration. To throw a disk with velocity, acceleration is necessary. 'Snap' as I understand it, is the secret of generating the most acceleration, however momentary, plus velocity and spin.
More spin = more stability. A disk thrown with tremendous spin will hold the angle of release for much longer than a disk with less spin, which seems to be what Blake is saying. A disk thrown very hard with not so much spin (muscled) is more likely to turn over as it will be unstable in flight. In my high school physics class, our teacher demonstrated this amazingly well with a bicycle wheel with an axle through it that you could hold on to. He then used a power drill motor to get the wheel spinning at a very high rpm.
The biggest, strongest guy in our class was holding the axle and once the wheel was spinning fast, he was unable to turn it at all until the spin slowed down. This is a gyroscopic force and is the same principal that keeps a disk stable in flight.
Those amazing long flights we've all seen disks do involve a balance of all these forces.
Acceleration achieves velocity.
Spin creates gyroscopic forces.
More spin creates stability.
Combining these forces perfectly will contribute to the longest flight.
Okay, on to 'lift,' which thus far has not been mentioned and ultimately is the force that turns a disk over or doesn't and has everything to do with distance.
/msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif :p

Using the terms velocity and acceleration in this context seems unecessarily confusing. A throw with perfect 'snap' will have a higher acceleration and velocity. Once the disk leaves your hand, it immediately begins to lose velocity and there is no acceleration. To throw a disk with velocity, acceleration is necessary. 'Snap' as I understand it, is the secret of generating the most acceleration, however momentary, plus velocity and spin.




i separate velocity from acceleration because i believe there is not enough distinction between the components as imo, they are separate focal points of the throw and one or the other usually dominates the throw power and each type yields different flight characteristics.
here is how i interpret the two pre launch:
velocity = arm speed + reach back
force = mass x accel = snap + rip
spin = rpm's generated by the release of the lock into the rip

most players have an excess of arm speed and a deficiency in snap. very few players i know of utilize adding/removing spin to its fullest potential. also, the majority of turnover problems i know of are generally more a result of off-axis torque than of excess velocity/force.

i would be willing to wager the average player throwing 360' is about 80% armspeed 20% snap. i have performed 360' throws using 20% armspeed 80% snap. the main difference is that the base velocity upon launch in this case is usually lower for the snap powered throw, however, due to the force component the snap powered throw penetrates more with less deceleration and can achieve similar D.

the thing to be known is that anyone throwing > 425' has very good snap and at least decent armspeed, whereas throwing > 475' usually requires great snap and very good armspeed.

the problem with thinking purely about velocity is that players generally attempt to throw farther simply by adding armspeed and often being detrimental to developing/adding snap, which usually is the key to pushing them over the top in terms of D. a lot of this thread has been talk of how the disc flies post release, but they keys to utilizing this to its fullest is to know how to manipulate the variables pre-release.

to robj:

thanks for the comments, as long as people like to read it, i'll keep writing it. as for discs that air bounce well... all discs will have a lower cruise speed nose up than nose down. some slower discs do not have very high nose down cruise speeds and the difference will be less noticeable. these are mostly discs that are low speed neutral. the aurora ms, juju, comet, and stratus are a few that come to mind.

first, let me say, this thread has been an great learning experience, and I have gotten much more helpful information that I ever would have expected when I first posed these questions. thank you all, very much.



most players have an excess of arm speed and a deficiency in snap. very few players i know of utilize adding/removing spin to its fullest potential ... i would be willing to wager the average player throwing 360' is about 80% armspeed 20% snap. i have performed 360' throws using 20% armspeed 80% snap.




this is something I must repeat to myself over and over again. when i started improving my snap the first thing i wanted to do was apply it to my full armspeed x-step run up. Doing so probably gives me ~50 extra feet, but less control, and as i learned the hard way this weekend, if i get to overzealous it's easy to reinjure my back have to stop playing. so back to the drawing board for me. when you throw 20% armspeed, 80% snap, do you do any sort of run up? or is it just flat footed stationary, arm whip and wrist snap? and which grip do you use? i don't need to throw 360', but 250' with control would be nice (right now, arm only, with no run up i can get almost 200' if i give it some anhyzer).



the problem with thinking purely about velocity is that players generally attempt to throw farther simply by adding armspeed and often being detrimental to developing/adding snap, which usually is the key to pushing them over the top in terms of D.




i noticed playing this weekend with some more experienced players, that all they were really doing was using a really powerful run up, with tons of armspeed, but very little snap. a couple of them barely even used their elbows, and they were all topping out around 300 feet. who knows, maybe as i continue to perfect my snap i will eventually be the one teaching them...

Once the disk leaves your hand, it immediately begins to lose velocity and there is no acceleration.


That statement just makes me giggle... how can a disc change its velocity and have NO acceleration if acceleration is defined as the derivative of velocity with respect to time? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Well, giggle all you like, but the facts remain the same.
The disc achieves maximum velocity as it leaves your hand.
There is no further forward acceleration.
Acceleration is actually defined as the increase of velocity over time. There is velocity change in the form of deceleration as soon as the disc begins its flight. Perhaps that is what is confusing you.
There is no acceleration.
For a disc to accelerate after leaving your hand, it would have to have a motor in it.
:)

More spin = more stability. A disk thrown with tremendous spin will hold the angle of release for much longer than a disk with less spin, which seems to be what Blake is saying. A disk thrown very hard with not so much spin (muscled) is more likely to turn over as it will be unstable in flight. In my high school physics class, our teacher demonstrated this amazingly well with a bicycle wheel with an axle through it that you could hold on to. He then used a power drill motor to get the wheel spinning at a very high rpm.
The biggest, strongest guy in our class was holding the axle and once the wheel was spinning fast, he was unable to turn it at all until the spin slowed down. This is a gyroscopic force and is the same principal that keeps a disk stable in flight.
Those amazing long flights we've all seen disks do involve a balance of all these forces.
Acceleration achieves velocity.
Spin creates gyroscopic forces.
More spin creates stability.
Combining these forces perfectly will contribute to the longest flight.
Okay, on to 'lift,' which thus far has not been mentioned and ultimately is the force that turns a disk over or doesn't and has everything to do with distance.




Thank you for giving the science behind that -- I can't tell you how many times I have heard people think more spin turns a disc over. another misconception many seem to have is that they have too much snap to throw anything that isn't overstable. I played ultimate for many years before switching to disc golf, so I know that spin is what can keep an understable disc from turning over and allows it to keep cruising for maximum D. A lot of people mistakenly think more spin makes a disc turn over or that big arms have to throw overstable stuff. I know I can throw an understable disc hard and far into a headwind without turning it over by giving it a ton of spin. (of course, hyzer doesn't hurt either :D)

to Blake:

you are helping me start to understand in my head what the transition to disc golf from ultimate requires me to learn. I think my muscles have slowly learned through repetition, but I still have a long way to go. I could throw an ultrastar very far by throwing it high and nose up, but from what I hear, lids like that have a tendency to pull their nose down when thrown nose up, whereas golf drivers are designed to have lift and therefore need to be thrown nose down. My muscle memory resists the idea, but I am slowly trying to retrain my muscles. One ot the things I am finding hardest to learn is that throwing an overstable disc with anhyzer is not simply a matter of changing your wrist angle while keeping your forearm (elbow to wrist) parallel to the ground.

Perhaps you could say a little about any differences between forehand and backhand in terms of optimal snap and armspeed ratios...

For a disc to accelerate *after* leaving your hand, it would have to have a motor in it.
:)



That sounds correct and true 99.9% of the time. But what is your understanding of hyperspin? isn't that a technique which sort of causes a disc to do the equivalent of spinning its tires out of the start, and then gain traction after release and suddenly accelerate at warp speed?

Well, giggle all you like, but the facts remain the same.
The disc achieves maximum velocity as it leaves your hand.
There is no further forward acceleration.
Acceleration is actually defined as the increase of velocity over time. There is velocity change in the form of deceleration as soon as the disc begins its flight. Perhaps that is what is confusing you.
There is no acceleration.
For a disc to accelerate after leaving your hand, it would have to have a motor in it.
:)


First let me begin this by saying I am not trying to be an acehole and argue tooth and nail over word choice, I just like a friendly back and forth "discussion." In the realm of physics (which is the realm I think we are discussing since we are using the term velocity) the term acceleration is a vector quantity representing the derivative of the velocity vector in space (defined as the derivative of position with respect to time) with respect to time. This vector can point in any direction and not just along the path of the object. In the case of our moon (roughly speaking), its speed is constant while its velocity has constant magnitude, but ever changing direction. The acceleration of the moon always points in and thus we can see an example of an object which never changes speed but has a change in velocity. So now on to a disc. Once a disc leaves your hand it has a velocity vector attributed to it. This vector has a component along the line you aimed, a component in the upwards direction (unless you throw worm burners or TOTALLY flat), and a component in the axis which you see as left and right (hopefully minimal). The instant the disc is no longer in contact with your hand, the acceleration vector violently changes. Prior to release, the disc has acceleration along the path you move it until hit. However, once it leaves your hand there are a great deal of forces acting on it. Gravity begins to accelerate the disc downward instantly and the discs forward velocity magnitude begins to shrink resulting in an accleration component facing back towards you. Another way to see that a disc has to have acceleration is Newton's Second Law is classically known as F = ma. If the forces on the disc are nonzero (obviously) and the mass of the disc is nonzero (obviously) then the acceleration vector must be nonzero since Euclidian 3 space is a field.

Now to sum up all that stuff up there... if you want to use the scientific definition, decelleration is a very hard to define unless you choose specifically the coordinate system in which you are working. In the exampe of the moon, it could have decelleration or no acceleration if you used either cartesian or cyllindrical/spherical coordinates.

Ok so that was pretty long winded, but I am a math nerd and don't mind arguing this sort of stuff. My main point is that using the term decelleration is a vague concept unless you specifically use it with respect to a very particular coordinate and basis system.

Blarg can speak for himself, but I am fairly sure he was saying that positive acceleration in the forward direction the disc is travelling ceases after the release of the disc.

I understand that, I was just arguing that using the term decelleration is a really bad choice unless we are discussing rectilinear motion which a disc clearly does not have. But all and all... just trying to have a little fun banter.

I appreicate what you're saying, I just want to also keep it so that I (as a laymen wanting to understand) don't get lost :D

--cut-- positive acceleration in the forward direction the disc is travelling ceases after the release of the disc.



unless the force created by the disc mass and aerodynamics, combined w/spin and velocity from the thrower, can briefly be greater than the friction and gravity components in the equation

and watch out for those immovable objects - then we'd have to start talking about material elasticity and ricochet angles

Whew! The water's gettin' deep! :DI think we can leave the orbit of the moon out for now, for a myriad of reasons.
When I used the term deceleration, I meant, slows down.
This is the definiton of deceleration.
I thought I mentioned that there is acceleration downwards
towards the center of the earth due to gravity.
However, this force will do little to advance the disc towards the target, unless you are throwing downhill.
Just so we're all on the same page here, accelerate means: to cause to move faster: to increase the velocity of.
The opposite of deceleration.

As to the 'hyperspin' question, I always preferred to call this type of disc flight 'hyzer flip,' as I can put hyperspin on a disc while throwing it 20 feet (ask a freestyler or Ultimate player). Hyperspin, in and of itself, will not move a disc forward. However, when combined with hyper speed, a disc can be released straight ahead with a bit of hyzer and at a slightly upward vector and travel at the hyzer angle for some distance and then suddenly flip up level and appear to take off as if it had an afterburner. This is the pattern of the longest throws I've ever seen (550+ feet). A glory to behold. Sometimes the disc will flip up a bit past flat to an anyzer angle and will travel gently to the right before coming back straight, or left. I've also seen them fly dead straight and fade dead straight and land flat. The straight shots went the furthest as they wasted no distance due to curving. This requires huge rpms (or 'hyperspin') which maintain the stability of the disc through the entire flight, hand to sky to ground.
I believe the illusion of acceleration perceived at the 'flip' part of the flight is due to the fact that the disc begins to lift dramatically as it flattens out and appears to 'leap' forward.
In that sense, the disc does 'take off.' It may also be that the disc, when flying at the hyzer angle, exposes more of the underside to the wind and hence encounters more resistance.
Once it 'flips' flat, it presents a more aerodynamic profile to the air in front of it and is hindered less as it moves through the air. This would imply an acceleration due to the reduction of wind resistance. Same diminishing force, different shape presented to the wind, less resistance.
In any case, achieving this throw requires great velocity combined with very high speed spin in just the right ratio.
In essence, 'snap.'

P.S.
Nobody throws slow and far. :D

This is very intersting stuff... On this same subject, When I am throwing my farthest I feel as if I am throwing with very little effort, yet when I feel like I am using alot of power my throws go no where, I'm fairly certain that the cause is timing and that my good throws use my hip/shoulder turn and my bad ones use my arm. Can anyone confirm this and suggest a way to be more consistent, possibly how they delay thier arm whip so it doesn't lead the shoulder pull.

Edit.. Forgot to mention my good shots are line drives staright as an arrow or very tight helix's... my bad ones are worm burnners or very high wide S curves. incase that helps.
I'm kinda thinking that the reason my good shots are so straight is because I'm getting good snap and putting alot of spin on them. Does this sound right?

First to make a laymans explanation. Accerlation is a deciving term, often thought to be only a positive number. In actuality acceration is the change in velocity in relation to time. Meters per second per second or m/s^2. This is all relational to the origin. The actual measure of gravity is -9.8m/s^2. This is because our relation to something falling is down, if we were to measure gravity of earth from space it would appear to be 9.8m/s^2. The change acceleration that slows the disc down is due to the friction of air (obvious to this smart group), but if thrown in a vacuum, only then would a disc achieve zero acceleration after release.



This is very intersting stuff... On this same subject, When I am throwing my farthest I feel as if I am throwing with very little effort, yet when I feel like I am using alot of power my throws go no where, I'm fairly certain that the cause is timing and that my good throws use my hip/shoulder turn and my bad ones use my arm. Can anyone confirm this and suggest a way to be more consistent, possibly how they delay thier arm whip so it doesn't lead the shoulder pull.

Edit.. Forgot to mention my good shots are line drives staright as an arrow or very tight helix's... my bad ones are worm burnners or very high wide S curves. incase that helps.
I'm kinda thinking that the reason my good shots are so straight is because I'm getting good snap and putting alot of spin on them. Does this sound right?



Beast165g,
I have this similar problem. Although I have great distance, 450ft distance comp, 430ft golf throws, I am very ineffiecent with my drives and hard throws.

I imagine, like me, you mainly pull from your waist, this in effect uses only your arm muscles and not your larger stronger upper back muscles. I assume that you are generally happy with your distance, and your descriptions of your flights sound like you are using your hips correctly.

Hip and shoulder turn are very important factors on acheiving high disc velocity. And I argue they are the most consistant. This combined with the snap from the wrist is what will give you your long drives.

I too pull from my waist, and the few times in golf that I have used my back, I easily throw to one of our long drop zones on our course (410-420ft). I can usually do this pulling from my waist, but it feels better using my back.

This is something I mentally think about every time I am on the tee pad. "keep my arm up, throw it flat" (unless I want hyzer/anhyzer) but I always concentrate on keeping my arme up. We worked on a guy who was "soup dipping" dropping his arm to his knees and then throwing virtually straight up in the air. We made him practice throwing over a 3.5ft high fence so that he could not "soup dip". It took awhile but he got rid of it.

I started a thread "How to put your back in to it". The best advice I recieved was "just practice" and "if your throwing 450ft with just your arm, don't worry about it".

This is my advice to you. Good luck.

as for "deceleration" it's really "negative acceleration" :)

robj:

that transition from ultimate to dg is one of the more difficult ones. practice and focus are the only two things i know of that fix the problems associated with this. one thing i do know is that ultimate players generally have a very clean release or even slight torque under on the disc and based upon what the popular drivers on the market are, they often pick discs that they are forced to torque over. working your way up from slower, narrower rimmed discs that are less nose angle dependent is about the best way i know of to make this transition the smoothest. discs like the cyclone (broken in), gazelle (semi-broken in), voyager, sabre, etc. are often the best candidates for this transition, and mainly in standard (cheaper) plastics.

due to previous injuries, i do not know the sidearm throw well and i don't believe that my 200' sidearm putter flick is an adequate representation to base it off of. i am going out on a limb and going to assume that people who throw the sidearm > 400' probably do generate tendon rebound force in the forward direction (similar to a pitcher), but that for most players, there really isn't true "snap" in the same sense as a backhand throw.

blarg:

as for hyperspin throws, they do differentiate themselves from regular hyzer flips (which actually are easier to perform with low amounts of spin on the disc). hyper spin shots require an insane amount of snap. from my experiences with them, i was able to release the disc at a 45 degree hyzer and very nose up and the disc would penetrate straight out (with a bit of lift due to nose angle) for about 150' and then abruptly flip to flat and nose down and continue on a dead straight flight path for its entire flight (occasionally upwards of 450' with about 60% power) with the "illusion" of the disc increasing in velocity abruptly as the disc popped from 45 deg and nose up to 0 deg and nose down.

i'm not sure how to interpret the physics of this situation but here's my attempt at it:

the snap of a hyperspin shot occurs during the final 0.100 of a second or less immediately before the rip and usually starting with a low base armspeed. during this snap period i'd estimate the disc changes from ~20 to ~45 mph in a period of say 0.033 seconds (0.0000092 hours). under this formula, acceleration = ~2717391 mph^2. (and yes, i'm going to be mixing english standard and metric here but i will be consistent across examples so the relative outcome should be the same). force = m x a = ~170g x 2717391 = 461956470. this is for a throw that i would call 10-20% armspeed 80-90% snap. for ease, i'll compare this with a 100% armspeed 0% snap throw. for most players (even long throwers) performing long reachback throws, the time required from start to rip is about 0.300 seconds (0.000083 hours) and lets say they go from 0mph to 60mph with no added accel from wrist snap and accel = ~722891 mph^2. force = ~122891566. the snap throw has ~3.75x as much force as the non-snap throw. after varying in factors such as there will be some more force caused by the limited pull of the snap throw and more force caused by a little bit of snap on the velocity throw (say acceleration of 55 to 60 mph during the final 0.033 seconds), i would estimate the true magnitude is probably somewhere between 2x and 3x if these were purely 20/80 and 80/20 throws.

i'm going to ignore the force of gravity (170g x -9.8 f/s^2) since it's opposing force is caused more by air pockets forming under the rim of the disc causing lift, but the one to contend with is the drag force of air friction. my hypothesis is that throws with greater force will displace air more and decelerate less while the force vector is still active (up to the first 200' of the throw) than throws with lesser force. i could be mistaken on this but it makes sense in my own twisted mind.

as for the spin component of hyperspin throws, i interpret this as the rpm's being so great relative to velocity that the gyroscopic/centrifugel (sp?) forces are enough to counteract the natural disc (hyzer) angle regardless of the nose angle. the flattening out (or turnover) of the disc seems to occur rapidly as the disc reaches cruise speed after an initial launch > than that speed.

i haven't taken physics since spring of 1998, but this is the way that seems to make sense to me based upon the behavior of the disc given varying amounts of each throw component.



Nobody throws slow and far.




actually... my longest throws of all time were very snap driven and generally had a lower velocity and carried much less momentum into the second half flight than my more consistent (but shorter flying) reach back throws. a lot of them seemed to hover in the air/carry much better but disappointingly dropped out of the air while still flat (my theory is that there were still a lot of rpm's on the disc when it ran out of forward velocity). the main difference apparantly was the ability for the disc to penetrate early... and so, i want to believe that force does play a larger part than is given credit for so far.

as for an example of someone who throws (relatively) slow and far, ken jarvis was 10-20mph (he threw upper 40's mph) slower than the other throws at theo pozzy's throw analysis but he also has tremendous rip strength and generally can throw farther than 99% of the pro players, many of which have much greater disc velocity.

to madcow:

as for my snap throws i used for reference, they did use the x-step but with a very compact reach... elbow bent 90 degrees with the disc over my left shoulder at the peak of the reach back. my focus on those throws was to use the legs to power the body rotation and relatively little emphasis on pre-hit arm strength... although at the rip/hit i would be VERY strong in the grip/forearm. as for grip type, i found it only mattered based upon what type of spin i wanted on the throw. if i wanted a disc to hold a turnover longer i went with a fan grip (less spin)... if i wanted max spin (most stability) i threw power grip... cleanest release/control with balanced amounts of spin i threw with a fork grip, etc. from my interpretations of grip, it seems that lock strength and its release tends to be one of the determining factors and the stronger the lock release, the more spin you can impart upon the disc. a fan grip inherently has a weaker lock (pinkey finger) than a power grip (3 finger pad/tip lock).

to beast156:

as for how to let the shoulder lead the arm, the best advice i can give is to practice with a relaxed arm (think 50% power, nearly all of which should start with the legs, you may want to start without using a runup and simply powering the throw by your hips opening). start slow, and allow yourself bad throws. basically let your arm go nearly limp (you should be able to keep the disc at the height/angle you want). if this doesn't work, force yourself to hold the disc back at your max reachback position and wait for your body to bring the arm through. the practice sessions should focus on timing and not on actual performance. what you want is to develop a feel for the timing of the throw and how the disc feels ripping out of the hand. i also suggest when practicing not to concentrate on following through strong and let your follow through be more based on momentum of your body motions. when you can start feeling a well-ordered uncoiling of the body and the disc's behavior in your hand pre-rip, you will have the timing to start concentrating on the focal points of the throw, namely upper body timing and where you should focus your grip strength.

Whew! The water's gettin' deep! :DI think we can leave the orbit of the moon out for now, for a myriad of reasons.
When I used the term deceleration, I meant, slows down.
This is the definiton of deceleration.
I thought I mentioned that there is acceleration downwards
towards the center of the earth due to gravity.
However, this force will do little to advance the disc towards the target, unless you are throwing downhill.
Just so we're all on the same page here, accelerate means: to cause to move faster: to increase the velocity of.
The opposite of deceleration.



Ok, so look in any text book of any decent level and find the term "slow down" as the definition of anything. You MIGHT find that in your kids 5th grade science book, but I think the lot of this message board would respect a true answer.

as for "deceleration" it's really "negative acceleration"



This terminology is perfectly accurate if the disc is in rectilinear motion which no disc on this planet ever experiences. The terms negative and positive are in regards to the basis of the vector space we use to represent Euclidian 3 space. In any case the acceleration can point in an innumerable amount of directions and not just 2 (where we could call them positive and negative). What I am saying is that the acceleration vector never points along the same line for more than an instant and thus it is hard to call it "positive" or "negative" since it has 3 dimensions of movement and not just one.

Now, maybe we can make a compromise. If Blarg is willing to admit that the term decelleration is a term which detrimental to your overall understanding of the overall mechanics since it is limited in its use, we can agree to use the only accurate definition of decelleration. Decelleration can be defined as a motion in which the magnitude of the acceleration vector is decreasing. HAD Blarg used the word Speed (defined as the magnitude of the velocity vector) his definition of acceleration would be accurate and there would be no ambiguity in the terms decelleration versus acceleration. However if we wish to use tools which can describe the motion of a disc in 3 dimensions without ambiguity we encounter vector quantities for velocity and acceleration in which the ides of positive and negative begin to be become very problematic. While the term decelleration can be used to say that the disc "slows down" by saying that its speed is decreasing is accurate, it is a bit simplistic and would be like saying "disc go up... disc come down." While accurate it is nowhere near the sophistication needed for a true analysis of the dynamics of a golf disc.

Blake, your formula makes too many assumptions to be valid. First, your assumption of the snap in the final .1 seconds is never validated, second, your assumption that the disc changes from about 20 to about 45 mph is complete guess work, Third your guesstimate of .033 seconds for this to elapse futher invalidates your assumption.
Further, your percentages of 0% snap doesnt make any sense, a disc wont glide without spin

And, your 90% 10% mixture is complete abstraction.

You also, in addition to gravity, ignored the force of rotational velocity and air friction on the edge of the disc.

Later on you write:
"actually... my longest throws of all time were very snap driven and generally had a lower velocity and carried much less momentum into the second half flight than my more consistent (but shorter flying) reach back throws. a lot of them seemed to hover in the air/carry much better but disappointingly dropped out of the air while still flat (my theory is that there were still a lot of rpm's on the disc when it ran out of forward velocity). the main difference apparantly was the ability for the disc to penetrate early... and so, i want to believe that force does play a larger part than is given credit for so far."

you start out with that snap driven/slow drives fly farther, ok, plausible but not likely, then you talk about momentum, which is in terms of a single flight, the same as talking about velocity (mom.=Vel*mass) so weight is irrelevant, Then, you go on to state that they "hover in the air/carry much better", so that must be due to their spin right?

well i(under handle of supasnipa) pointed out the role spin plays in glide to you in another thread and you had this to say:

"Chris,

glide is more a factor of momentum and the disc's lift properties. often i've had throws that had enough spin to stay stable but ran out of momentum and landed flat. "
Again, momentum just means mass times velocity, so while a lighter disc may glide better, what do you think spin does?

quote is from this thread:

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Technique&Number=227567&page=6&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1


I think your grip article is great, but when it comes to physics of disc flight, I fail to follow your logic.

Thanks alot for the advice Blake, I think I know exactly what I started doing wrong now. Tomorrow I am confident that I will be crushing some drives with a nice easy stroke.

that transition from ultimate to dg is one of the more difficult ones. practice and focus are the only two things i know of that fix the problems associated with this. one thing i do know is that ultimate players generally have a very clean release or even slight torque under on the disc and based upon what the popular drivers on the market are, they often pick discs that they are forced to torque over. working your way up from slower, narrower rimmed discs that are less nose angle dependent is about the best way i know of to make this transition the smoothest. discs like the cyclone (broken in), gazelle (semi-broken in), voyager, sabre, etc. are often the best candidates for this transition, and mainly in standard (cheaper) plastics.



thanks Blake for the comments. I used to throw a Cyclone and really like the way it lets me get away with a more frisbee like approach. Now I am using Valkyries and Orcs. Your comments make me wonder if I should carry a Cyclone for over the top throws. (1) Does it seem to you like it would be easier for me to throw high and still get good distance with that type of disc? (2) Also, what is the major difference between throwing discs that are less nose-angle dependent and ones that are in terms of what needs to be done regarding the nose? (3) Are wider-rimmed discs generally more nose-angle dependent?
(4) I am really interested in are your terms torque over and torque under, but I am not sure what you mean -- please explain.





due to previous injuries, i do not know the sidearm throw well and i don't believe that my 200' sidearm putter flick is an adequate representation to base it off of. i am going out on a limb and going to assume that people who throw the sidearm > 400' probably do generate tendon rebound force in the forward direction (similar to a pitcher), but that for most players, there really isn't true "snap" in the same sense as a backhand throw.



right now I throw forehands well with putters for shorter shots, but have trouble throwing for distance with drivers. (5) Is getting the nose down essential?

I numbered my questions to make them easy to reference in your answers. thanks again for sharing your time and expertise

Webster's dictionary defines deceleration as: To slow down.
Period.
It is and has always been the definition of deceleration.
We are speaking in terms of an object throw by a human.
Starts faster, slows down, hits the ground.
It is in no way detrimental to the understanding of what happens to a thrown object. In fact, it greatly simplifies the understanding.
Velocity is defined in Webster's as speed, so I see no problem using either word here.
For this discussion I assume the following definitions. I've looked them all up in Webster's.
Accelerate: to cause to move faster. to add to the velocity of.
Deceleration: to slow down.
Velocity: speed.
Yes, we can speak of negative acceleration, if you insist, but it only makes explaining the behavior of a disc more confusing. I prefer deceleration, or slows down, in this context.
I'm sure a book on astrophysics would have a more complex definition of these terms, but for our purposes here, they'd be as irrevelant as defining the terms in relation to an ekpyrotic universe.
On to string theory. :p

I have still yet to see anyone throw slow and further than about 300 feet. From what I understand of 'snap' or the 'rip,' it imparts tremendous velocity (and spin) to the disc in a very short time. I think Dunipace compared it to the action of a trebuchet or medieval catapult. I have no way of measuring the interval, but it is too fast to see when viewing slow motion footage of pros throwing even when I've viewed one frame at a time. There is a frame where the disc is in the hand and the next frame the hand and disc are a blur and one frame later the disc is quite a distance away. It seems to happen in about .001 seconds but it could certainly be .033
I'd love to see footage of the 'snap' taken with a super high speed video camera.
We're talking about the same type of throw, clearly, we just seem to be using different terms. All I'm trying to do is clarify the terms.
All the massively long throws I've seen (over 500 feet) moved very fast. You could hear the disc sort of roar as it left the thrower's hand, if you were close enough.

P.S.
I have no idea what ~271391 comes from, but it sure has helped my throw! :D

btw, it's like 4am and i have no idea if i'm coming off as confrontational or not. am just trying to clarify myself here and i don't mean to step on any toes.

supasnipa:

i know it makes too many assumptions but many of these things are difficult/impossible to measure and it is more to speak of the parts of the throw which many have neglected. the 0.1 seconds of snap is based upon the hundreds of throwing video breakdowns i have done. the "snap" of the throw takes less than 0.333 seconds. substantially less. 0.1 and 0.033 seconds was an approximation as snap is a very quick reflex action. think of pulling a rubber band tight and letting it snap back and that is a similar magnitude of time.

the 20 to 45 mph is based upon some radar gun throwing that i have witnessed. the highest velocity i have ever heard of anyone throwing was 77 mph. players who threw with a compact reach and a lot of snap generally had lower velocities (38-45 mph) than those with a full reach (45-60 mph), even though the compact reach throwers often were players capable of throwing farther. again, based on frame breakdowns with various types of throws, a bent elbow thrower with good D accelerates the disc from 0 to ~45 mph in 0.667 to 0.833 seconds. a full reach thrower with good D accelerates the disc from 0 to ~60 mph in 1.133 to 1.333 seconds. as for the 0% snap, i said this wasn't really possible and just an approximation. to accurately compensate i could have calculated an approximate force due to snap knowing that it takes place in less than 0.333 seconds. however, the lock/rip interaction generally contributes more to spin than snap as a lot of rotation can be achieved with very little snap and similarly, less rotation with more snap simply by manipulation of the strength of the rip/lock.

i'll agree my 90/10 was just an abstraction, the point wasn't to get conclusive evidence that <blank 1> is superior to <blank 2>, but merely to dispell rumors that trying to get the disc going as fast as possible from peak of the reach back to the rip will always yield superior D to focusing upon a well timed extension into the hit with a compact reach. this was covered quite a bit and eventually the outcome of the distance secrets thread and article compiled by Lowe and Dave D.

as for the disc starting slower and going farther, it is because these were not ceteris paribus assumptions. when i try to throw with snap, i get less velocity. when i try to throw with velocity i get less snap. ideally, i would have max snap and max velocity, but unfortunately with throwing mechanics this rarely works.

as for the next subject, discs fall out of the air for several reasons. as a disc runs out of spin it will drop in the direction opposite the spin. likewise, as a disc runs out of velocity it will fall to the ground regardless of spin. most players i have witnessed and worked with have throws where the disc runs out of stable rpm's before it runs out of velocity. the throw i reference later is one that has enough rpm's to stay stable when the disc runs out of velocity. discs that are fading also generally crash down harder as they are travelling downards at an angle simliar to how the disc has turned. discs that land flat generally hover downwards as there is still air trapped under the rim. the thing comparing these two types of finishes is that the skip distance of the shot that fades out is often greater than the distance gained by a disc staying in the air slightly longer, landing flat and sliding. the big thing is that to achieve great differences in disc flight due to spin, the difference in rpm's must be great and it usually only affects stability.

the other big thing is this: there is a fairly established line for maximum distance throws where too much spin is detrimental. the max D line generally has a disc late in its flight turning ~30 degrees to the right of center and then fades forwards as the disc runs out of spin. too much spin on the disc makes it more difficult for the disc to hold a turnover, and if it does hold the turnover, makes it more difficult to get a well timed forward fade out of the disc.

several sources for my grip article actually recommended not to even talk about spin and that it is wholly unimportant. i differ in that philosophy in that i believe spin can be manipulated to change disc flight lines but i would not say more spin = more D, or less spin = more D, just that large changes in spin affect flight properties.

most of the material covered when talking about snap vs. velocity was beaten to death on other threads, i'm mainly just rehashing it. i don't really care to argue about it, but i don't know too many people that throw both full reach and compact reach (bent elbow) and can give their input.

if you believe i am wrong, please come up with better estimations and fill us in :)

robj:

1) yes. older, narrower rimmed, slower flying drivers are less dependent upon nose angle. keep in mind the cyclone was thrown 636' in competition and that many many players have thrown it well over 400'. i personally throw a lot of eagles/teebirds when i'm going for controlled D.

2) you should always try to throw nose down, but if you get a cyclone nose neutral or slight nose up, you will probably achieve a better looking throw (it might flatten/turn to nose down) than say an orc nose up (which is almost a guarenteed stall and crash unless you have 500+ power).

3) yes. partly because they are faster discs and the slower the disc, the easier it is to snap it nose down if you get it nose up. the other part has to do with the % of mass on the flightplate vs. rim...

4) torque over = something that skews the orientation of the disc towards an anhyzer direction such as a wrist roll over, jerked follow through downward, etc.

torque under = something that skews the orientation of the disc towards a hyzer direction such as a wrist roll under, etc.

5) nearly all max D throws start nose down, so yes. you may want to check how your push/pull directions (right/left of center) align with your shot angle. sidearm nose down anhyzer = pull slight left of center. sidearm nose down hyzer = push slight right.

[/QUOTE]All the massively long throws I've seen (over 500 feet) moved very fast. You could hear the disc sort of roar as it left the thrower's hand, if you were close enough.

[/QUOTE]

Two beautiful sounds in this sport.

1: The sound of plastic crashing into chains
2: The roar of a super fast drive as it flies through the air.

If you have not heard this, it is an incredible sound. There is nothing compared to it. Of course to hear it, you have to be close to the flight path which obviously endangers your head.

I glanced over the papers once or twice and a few questions pop out.
One is:
The golf disc tested claims to be an eagle.
The paper notes the importance of accurate measurements of disc geometry. That makes me wonder why the disc used measure 20.1. Is it the wrong disc or wrong measurement?
By looks the closest disc would actually be our "H" Sabre or maybe the Dragon, excpet the wings are more concaved in both of these discs. Actually it looks similiar to the discwing disc. None of which measure 20.1cm!

Secondly,
Can an accurate account of predicting a discs flight be recorded with the spinning discs being stabilized by the rod that spins it. Maybe I didnt look close enough, did the disc have the ability to rise up and down freely as lift was created?
In the embodiment of innova's golf disc patent, it clearly states that the utility function of the disc is based on the gryscopic effect of the spin and transferring of energy to the mass. The claims are made that as the disc spins the flight plate is lowered when the ( enertia?)is transfered to the mass, as the disc losses revolutions the flight plate domes back up. I've always questioned this phenomenon, but the question here is. would it be possible to test for this with a rod stabalizing the flight plate.

I'm sure these questions are for the author, but several here seem to have enough knowledge to at least make a speculation.



Since I was the one who brought this to the forum I'll first give a disclaimer:

Keep in mind that the paper in question was written as an undergraduate senior design project. That means these students were also trying to graduate from college and find a job or get into grad school while working on this project. I'm not sure if things are different in the aero-E department (I was an EE) but normally these projects have 3-5 students in a team rather than 2 and most of them don't turn nearly that good. While the project was a requirement for graduation it probably had very little effect on the students' GPA, but I'm sure they scored well.

Now that that's been said, your questions are valid, but I doubt you'll ever get the people who wrote that to answer them. For how much work they put into that they probably never want to look at that material again. I'm also assuming that they were just looking to start a first order approximation of modeling a disc's flight. While it is true that testing to see what kind of effect that up and down motion of the flight plate may have on the flight, starting with that as a variable would complicate the initial modeling many times over and would probably have been outside the scope of the project.

I'm guessing they had the right disc but may not have had a really good sample. From what I understand the size of a disc can vary due to different environmental conditions while the disc is being made and cooled. Perhaps they just got a sample that's on the outside of acceptable size range. It could also be an error on the students' parts.

Webster's dictionary defines deceleration as: To slow down.
Period.
It is and has always been the definition of deceleration.
We are speaking in terms of an object throw by a human.
Starts faster, slows down, hits the ground.
It is in no way detrimental to the understanding of what happens to a thrown object. In fact, it greatly simplifies the understanding.
Velocity is defined in Webster's as speed, so I see no problem using either word here.
For this discussion I assume the following definitions. I've looked them all up in Webster's.
Accelerate: to cause to move faster. to add to the velocity of.
Deceleration: to slow down.
Velocity: speed.
Yes, we can speak of negative acceleration, if you insist, but it only makes explaining the behavior of a disc more confusing. I prefer deceleration, or slows down, in this context.
I'm sure a book on astrophysics would have a more complex definition of these terms, but for our purposes here, they'd be as irrevelant as defining the terms in relation to an ekpyrotic universe.
On to string theory. :p


So THERE is the problem. We are discussing the physics behind a golf disc by using Websters as the reference. If you know ANYTHING about physics you know that velocity and speed are not the same thing. If you want to get into String Theory, Super String Theory, or Topological Quantum Field Theory let me know... but if you are going to be using a dictionary for your arguments than I guess we are stuck with a paint by numbers look at a golf disc. Something tells me though, that if anyone at the major manufacturers would be using your off the hip type of "physics" then discs we have today would be non-existent and we would still be using trash can lids to play with. So if you insist on trusting old Webster for your understanding of dynamical systems then you are just like people in the early 20th century that refused to accept the principles of special and/or general relativity that claimed that time slows down and things get smaller as they move and/or that light rays can be curved by gravity.

Websters was never intended to be used for the use of physics but only a reference book to explain the BASIC concepts behind big words. To understand the mechanics of a golf disc it requires much more sophisticated ideas than Mr. Webster could ever offer. Everyone understands that wind resistance slows a disc down, but the forces that it causes on the disc are in multiple direction. If the disc is perfectly flat than there will be a force on the top of the disc pushing down, a force on the bottom pushing up, a force on the edge pushing "back", and a force on the side of the disc that is spinning in the direction of the flight slowing the spin rate down. Just a disclaimer, I understand that there is even more than that but its enough to make the point its not just air make disc slow down. If it was as simple as you so elloquently put it, then we would have ways to design discs to do precisely what we wanted and there would be no trial and error. However, since the mechanics involved are unsolvable the physics needed to look at the discs is sufficiently complex and need be if you want to understand the differences in discs with only slightly different wing shapes.

You know, after all of this, I sort of feel as if I am arguing with a 4 year old... this is how it works... nuh uh... yes huh... nuh uh... yeah... something like that. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

If you want to get into String Theory, Super String Theory, or Topological Quantum Field Theory let me know...



If we have already have a super string theory, do we really need any other string theories?

If we have already have a super string theory, do we really need any other string theories?



No, but we could probably use a Yellow Rope theory to explain why discs are inexplicably drawn towards OB areas. :cool:

someone upthread mentioned generating tendon rebound force in executing what we call "snap". in fact, maybe that's just what "snap" is. so when throwing backhand, which tendons should be generating the reboud force? the flexorrs, or the extensors? i'm guessing extensors, but i just wanted to make sure i'm understanding correctly.

If you want to get into String Theory, Super String Theory, or Topological Quantum Field Theory let me know...



If we have already have a super string theory, do we really need any other string theories?



To answer the question, no we don't need either. Both were theories devised in order to achieve a greater understanding in the world of physics, but neither has gotten any great results. The latter, Topological Quantum Field Theory, is a very modern approach at finding a unified field theory which would unify the concepts of relativity and quantum mechanics without discrepancies. Now will that help us know anything more about why you can't throw a MRV? No. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Heh. Treeklunker. You're arguing with Blarg as if you're pro-life vs pro-choice. You're not really talking about the same things. Blarg is saying his definitions are correct in a simplified way that people who do not share your passion for science understand. You are saying the more complicated and detailed definitions are better. I love learning random scientific stuff, specially physics, but blarg has his own way of understanding it without going into the complicated stuff, and can still improve his understanding with the webster definitions.

So, to say something on topic. I've gathered that disc flight is some complicated [*****], that people can't analyze very well, largely due to the rotation the disc is doing as it moves forward. Seems to me that we understand that spin creates stability to the disc, which is going to make it fly smoother and farther, but there are still other variables that the spin has on the flight, they're just harder to talk about...

Heh. Treeklunker. You're arguing with Blarg as if you're pro-life vs pro-choice. You're not really talking about the same things. Blarg is saying his definitions are correct in a simplified way that people who do not share your passion for science understand. You are saying the more complicated and detailed definitions are better. I love learning random scientific stuff, specially physics, but blarg has his own way of understanding it without going into the complicated stuff, and can still improve his understanding with the webster definitions.




I don't know that the Webster's definitions are always less complicated. If you throw a ball up in the air, by Webster's definitions it would be decellrating until it hit the peak, then it would not be accelerating for an instant and then it would accelerate downward. By the physics definition you can just say it's accelerating downwards the whole time. Also, when you're talking about something moving in more than one dimension (like a disc being thrown) it gets really complicated and you really have to watch your language when you talk about acceleration and deceleration depending on where the disc is in its flightpath. Using the physics definition, it's a lot easier to talk about which direction it's accelerating and you have less terms (words) to deal with. For example, is the disc acclerating or decelerating in the up and down direction right after you throw it? What about halfway through it's flightpath? What about at the end of it's flight?

someone upthread mentioned generating tendon rebound force in executing what we call "snap". in fact, maybe that's just what "snap" is. so when throwing backhand, which tendons should be generating the reboud force? the flexorrs, or the extensors? i'm guessing extensors, but i just wanted to make sure i'm understanding correctly.



i copied/pasted a little blurb from my follow up to the distance secrets article and posted it on my site with pictures/video of wrist snap/tendon bounce as well as a little text explaining it:
http://www.discgolfreview.com/resources/articles/snap.shtml

as for the things previously mentioned in this thread, i'm gonna bow out on it as people's whose knowledge of disc golf i trust have made cases against spin being a factor and if this is true, then i am going to have to do more experimenting in the spring if/when my wrist injury heals up and reconceptualize my knowledge of disc flight.

i will, however, continue to answer questions on how to make a disc fly with more/less spin, more/less velocity, more/less snap, more/less nose down, etc. as this is really my comfort zone.

4) torque over = something that skews the orientation of the disc towards an anhyzer direction such as a wrist roll over, jerked follow through downward, etc.

torque under = something that skews the orientation of the disc towards a hyzer direction such as a wrist roll under, etc.

5) nearly all max D throws start nose down, so yes. you may want to check how your push/pull directions (right/left of center) align with your shot angle. sidearm nose down anhyzer = pull slight left of center. sidearm nose down hyzer = push slight right.



Blake, this helps immeasurably as it helps me understand why I am having trouble throwing with anhyzer for D shots and why I have trouble getting the nose down. Playing ultimate for ten years taught me that torque under is simply "correct" and that anythign else won't work. Guess I'll have to trick my muscles into trying a new trick and seeing what it will do with an Orc.

One other question, do you try to play 'stupid' when you are actually throwing, or do you let your thinking occur while you are throwing? (I find I often mess up my game when I try to think and throw at the same time :D) I do however benefit when I think of what to remember to do *prior* to beginning to throw...

as for the things previously mentioned in this thread, i'm gonna bow out on it as people's whose knowledge of disc golf i trust have made cases against spin being a factor and if this is true, then i am going to have to do more experimenting in the spring if/when my wrist injury heals up and reconceptualize my knowledge of disc flight.




Blake, I think you are right on when you say more spin is likely to lead to more D -- it certainly seems to me that a disc will glide longer and delay stalling as long as it hasn't run out of 'Z's (aka: spin). Are you saying that you now question whether more spin = greater potential D?

Blake, this helps immeasurably as it helps me understand why I am having trouble throwing with anhyzer for D shots and why I have trouble getting the nose down. Playing ultimate for ten years taught me that torque under is simply "correct" and that anythign else won't work. Guess I'll have to trick my muscles into trying a new trick and seeing what it will do with an Orc.

One other question, do you try to play 'stupid' when you are actually throwing, or do you let your thinking occur while you are throwing? (I find I often mess up my game when I try to think and throw at the same time :D) I do however benefit when I think of what to remember to do *prior* to beginning to throw...



cool, i'm glad i could help with this. most former ultimate players do torque under during the transition as it is necessary for throwing a lid far. as for nose down anhyzer shots i would say that the direction you release the disc is imporant as well. if you correctly utilize your footwork you should be able to throw with more of a closed stance "pull" and get the disc nose down (which is slightly to the right of the straight line between you and the target).

imo, you'd be better off learning the big hyzer flip shot for more golf oriented (but still quite good) D.

as for when i am out throwing, i have a mental checklist and focal points, often done on-the-fly based upon my previous shots and their relative success/failure. most of my throw is based upon muscle memory, and only key factors i am changing do i try to manipulate during the throw, i.e. taking a longer step from the cross into the plant/pivot, or how much my right shoulder lowers during the reach. things that you always need such as weight forward, disc orientation, grip, etc. imo should be worked out on the practice field if at all possible.



Blake, I think you are right on when you say more spin is likely to lead to more D -- it certainly seems to me that a disc will glide longer and delay stalling as long as it hasn't run out of 'Z's (aka: spin). Are you saying that you now question whether more spin = greater potential D?



i've never said more spin = more D. what i have said is that varying amounts of spin can be used to alter a disc's flight characteristics (aka fly more or less stable). Dave D. has said that spin has no effect on disc flight and that it is only dependent upon velocity and nose angle. i believe i can safely say that there must be some spin, e.g. a 300' throw where the disc only makes 5 revolutions over the entire flight is probably impossible. but im not even going to try and comment on the rest of it for the time being.

A certain amount of spin is necessary for stable flight, but after than, it doesn't matter much. Discs hit the ground still spinning quite fast after traveling over 350 ft. The notion that discs stall because they run out of spin, is incorrect.

Dave, if the data of Jarvis throwing farther but much slower is true and if distance is only a function of velocity and nose angle, how do you explain Jarvis getting such distance without alot of velocity? It is hard to believe that he or anyone else could corner the market on nose angle.

Are the measurements of velocity somehow misleading?

IMO, it would be useful to have additional velocity measurements farther down the flight to measure deceleration. It would seem that Jarvis' disc must decelerate at a slower rate than the higher-velocity throwers. Why?

James, I never said that distance was solely a function of velocity and nose angle, just the flight characteristic of any particular throw. Of course height and wind and attack angle and angle with respect to wind direction. That aside, anyone who has seen the Jarvises throw will tell you that they throw very fast, as well as far. All of that aside, you can increase the distance you throw dramatically by using the wind and your particular disc properly. So, to answer the second question about velocities being misleading: depends on where you are being led but it is only one factor and I think the Jarvises might be a tad slower (one or two mph), but not much more. Lastly, the point of throwing high to low, is exactly so the disc does not decelerate as quickly. A good distance throw has a much longer glide phase, than a high speed phase. Most golf shots have much longer high speed phases relative to distance shots.

Sorry for the false attribution about distance as only a function of velocity and nose angle.

As for the slower velocity of the Jarvises, I have always been under the impression that Theo had measured velocity and plotted it against distance AND that some throwers had a much slower velocity (10 - 20 mph rather 1-2 mph), yet still achieved the similar distances. Maybe I have just been concieving a phenomenon that does not exist or it is explained by the additional factors you mention.

Heh. Treeklunker. You're arguing with Blarg as if you're pro-life vs pro-choice. You're not really talking about the same things. Blarg is saying his definitions are correct in a simplified way that people who do not share your passion for science understand. You are saying the more complicated and detailed definitions are better. I love learning random scientific stuff, specially physics, but blarg has his own way of understanding it without going into the complicated stuff, and can still improve his understanding with the webster definition.



I totally understand and know that blarg's definitions were meant as "simple" ones, but I was just saying that if you really want to understand why discs fly the way they do you do need a sophistication of at least a college physics course. As garublador put it, when things move in more than one dimension things get rough... and at that point the only help old Mr. Webster is going to be is to fling the dictionary and see how it "decelerates" after release. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

i copied/pasted a little blurb from my follow up to the distance secrets article and posted it on my site with pictures/video of wrist snap/tendon bounce as well as a little text explaining it:
http://www.discgolfreview.com/resources/articles/snap.shtml




Hey Blake, I wanted to let you know, I checked out this video of yours that illustrates "snap" yesterday, and practiced it at my desk while at work until my forearm started burning (in a good way). See I had been staying away from disc golf because I re-irritated a bad disc in my lower back playing 18 holes a week+ ago. Well, today I couldn't help myself, I had to go try out this new (to me) technique. In a word, it was successful. Throwing completely stationary, with only arm, I was consistently surpassing my previous distance limits. Eventually I attempted a few easy x-step approaches, and the results were even better, but even with a smooth x-step, the follow through kills me. Not following through seems to be hard on my elbow, and knee, though, so I'm going to have to figure something out. Anyway, consider this a sincere thank you!

Throwing completely stationary, with only arm, I was consistently surpassing my previous distance limits. Eventually I attempted a few easy x-step approaches, and the results were even better, but even with a smooth x-step, the follow through kills me.



How far were you throwing? How much of an increase? Did you feel anything different when releasing IE tendon snap or muscle stretch?